The data is pretty easy to explain based on the hypothesis that religion is motivated by an irrational fear of death...
That would neatly ignore the precept of many Christian religions that life itself is a gift from God. For the same reason that, for example, Catholics are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, extending life isn't an irrational fear of death. It is a desire to embrace every moment of an existence bestowed upon them by their Creator. To do otherwise is arguably to spurn it, or appear ungrateful for the fact that the person exists at all.
I find that to be a much more satisfying explanation than the plethora of smug, snarky posts like yours on this article. Everyone wants to project onto the study that the patients suddenly experienced doubt in their faith and were scared. I think that's what the posters want the situation to be, to the exclusion of other reasonable explanations.
Personally, I think the study doesn't have nearly enough sampling or data to draw any useful conclusions. Why not just ask the patients themselves why they opted for the life-extending measures?
Oh well. But don't let, you know, reality or alternative viewpoints get in the way of your bias.
Actually, compared to the Saturn V, the shuttle stack seems to jump off the pad.
It doesn't seem to... it does. The shuttle main engines are ignited 6-7 seconds before "0" or launch because they take that long to work up to their working thrust. If you ever see a close up of the orbiter during the final ten seconds, you'll see it rock a little from a slightly leaned-back angle to straight vertical as this happens.
The solid rocket boosters are bolted to the platform to prevent the shuttle stack from launching (or toppling) while that's happening. Imagine a car -- since this is/. -- spinning its tires in place before dropping the brake. That's what's happening. When the countdown hits 0, the SRBs have been ignited as well, and the shuttle is either going to be released or tear itself free. That's why those bolts are explosive. They pop off and the shuttle is gone.
The shuttle stack doesn't seem to leap off the pad, it really, really does.
It's interesting what you consider "a threat" at 17,000 mph in LEO. The U.S. Space Shuttle Orbiter was once struck by a fleck of paint traveling the opposite direction around the Earth. The piece of paint, about the size of a U.S. dime, went through one and a half of the three panes of inch-thick glass in one of the upper windows.
I can't say for certain, but I sincerely doubt we can track every dime-sized bit of detritus in LEO. Even the linked system states, "The radar can track an object the size of a basketball at a distance of more than 22,000 nm." At the speeds some things go, objects far smaller than a basketball can do catastrophic damage to orbiting satellites, vehicles, and humans.
If the photograph had been doctored to hide something or to give a wrong impression it would have been different.
I couldn't disagree with you more. As soon as you start to look at what the intent of the person altering (or ordering altered) a photograph is, you have to pass a value judgment over whether that intent was "pure", "righteous", "harmless", or whatever. That's a tricky path we can avoid altogether. What if the next photo is altered by the DoD because it shows soldiers committing a minor, victimless crime? Showing that would only "hurt America and the Army," so we just edit that bit out and reprimand the soldier, right? No thanks.
People generally expect photographs to be accurate, genuine depictions of the subject matter, especially when used in a journalistic context. I completely understand where the AP is coming from here. Their reputation takes a hit for publishing the altered photograph. I wouldn't want any new photos from the DoD until they were willing to commit to genuine, unaltered reproductions either. According to TFA, the Army said this one didn't violate any Army policies. The AP is perfectly reasonable for saying they're not accepting future photographs until the Army has a policy this would violate.
Might tend is the important part here. Since the answer could cause you to admit to violating a traffic law, you have to ask:
Is speeding, under certain circumstances or with other elements, a crime for which the defendant could be punished?
If so -- and I'm reasonably certain there's a host of criminal offenses to which that's a 'yes' -- then the answer to the question might tend to incriminate the defendant in some way. And that's a no-no. The admission need not be directly related to the matter at hand, but any admission that might tend incriminate the speaker.
---- IAAL, but I'm not your lawyer. If you want legal advice, hire one.
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant."
McCarthy v. Arndstein, U.S. Supreme Court, 1924.
Not only "can" you call yourself, you have a constitutional right to testify if you choose. What you're thinking of regarding cross-examination is this: if you choose not to testify, a prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial cannot force you to do so. If you choose to do so, though, he can question you. You can still refuse to answer questions under the Fifth, even then.
The only time I can think of when you can be compelled to answer a question, where the answer may tend to incriminate you, is when you have already been given immunity from any charges that could be brought by the answer. In that case, a judge can compel testimony under thread of contempt. In any other situation, however, you can refuse to incriminate yourself.
(N.B. It's supposed to prevent you from being tortured to confess. How's that working out these days?)
I am a lawyer. If you're interested in the law, you should learn it correctly before trying to teach others, as with everything else.
Animated films can be submitted for both "Best Animated Feature" and "Best Picture". The two categories are not mutually exclusive, though I suspect voters may treat them that way. ("I'll vote for it for animated and pick a 'better' movie for best picture.")
I agree with you about genre splitting, but, honestly, I'm happy to see animated movies receiving some recognition as films and not just long cartoons. If you flip through a list of the winners of this category, you'll see films that have done quite a bit to educate the American public that animated movies aren't just for kids. Not that there isn't some way to go yet, certainly.
A contract is, by definition, a bilateral agreement. The EULA is a contract offer, and if it is declined, there is NO contract between Sony and the user. What that means is that Sony is forcing a unilateral agreement onto a user who does not have a contract with Sony. That's a criminal case, not a civil case.
You're both right and wrong; it's how you look at the interaction. If Sony offers you a contract, and you decline, there's no contract. But Sony can't "force a unilateral agreement onto a user." What you mean, I think, is "Sony then does what it wants to -- what it said it would do under its half of the contract -- without your consent." Now that is trespass to your computer. It is meddling with your property without your consent. Trespass can have both criminal and civil consequences. The police can charge a trespasser with a crime and the property owner can file a civil lawsuit. This doesn't get into the state's deceptive practices act, which is up to the state AG to enforce.
Sony's defense to a claim of trespass could have been consent: the user allowed Sony to do things to the computer, as evinced by the contract. But there isn't one. Oops.
Sure, those things take years to master. But that's mastery. Does it take years to learn how to play chess? No. Does it take years to become a master of chess? Yes.
Learning how to accomplish tasks like adding a user and its options is simpler and takes far less time than learning how to write 'adduser.' Evaluate the book on the standard it sets for itself: learning how to do things. Don't judge it wanting because it doesn't teach the entire universe of how unix works.
The Chief Justice doesn't choose cases for the Court. A "yes" vote from any four justices is enough for the Court to hear the case. The parties petition, and 4 justices have to vote yes for a case to be granted cert.
The Chief Justice does, however, lead the discussion leading to decision, and, if in the majority, choose who writes the opinion. So, the Chief is not without sway, and usually leads like-minded judges.
The earlier post which said it's the best job ever was half right: you might still have to hear a case if you don't want to, but you never have to write a sentence unless you take the opinion for yourself.
And, a little more knowledge for the curious, Chief Justices usually try to put a 'theme' to their tenure. For example, Earl Warren's was "Person liberty" and Rehnquist's was "States' rights" or "States' dignity." It'll be interesting to see where Roberts goes.
Dude. I was told by a judge of a case where the jury in a rape case asked why DNA testing was never done on the semen. Why was this an unusual request? The defense was consent.
The song was written in 1940.[1] Guthrie died in 1967.[2] Because copyright registration -- and that's what this is -- only lasted 28 years, it had to be re-registered. Registration could only be done within 6 months of the expiration date, IIRC. That would mean it was re-registered by Guthrie's heirs in 1968 and not Guthrie.
He also didn't give up or license away his rights to the song for more than 28 years -- copyright law didn't let him. After the initial term, all rights reverted to him or his heirs. His heirs renewed it. Maybe not what he would have wanted, but it was their choice.
The upshot is: lay off Guthrie, and stick it to his progeny.
Absolutely. Courts interpret laws as rationally as they can, but they aren't the place to decide what public policy is. That's exactly what Congress is supposed to do.
Ultimately, laws decide the balance of interests. That's not to say all laws come out balanced, just that Congress makes a decision of (say) exactly how much freedom to restrict in exchange for exactly how much security. The DMCA, for example, traded away our freedom to access and copy against the threat, even if unproven, of piracy. As long as the laws are constitutional, courts really are powerless to override balance-shifting laws, even in the face of long standing doctrine. Congress makes the laws, not the courts. (Although, Congress makes almost all the courts too.) In the case of copyright, Congress has almost unlimited discretion. The single best way to affect bills like this is to write your legislator(s) and vote. Relying on courts to later limit the damage or restore the older balance is misguided.
Sign up for the EFF Action Center. "Writing" your Congressman or Senator(s) can be as easy as signing and submitting an HTML form letter with your name and address. Maybe you don't want to be on a political mailing list -- that's understandable. Then leave off your name, but send it anyway.
Congress is supposed to be the people's branch of the federal government. Make them serve you.
I understand, but that breaks down even worse in SCO's favor. The litmus test is this:
1. Is the code EXACTLY the same?
This is not the litmus test. Copyrighted material need not be copied exactly for infringement. See that part on "substantial similarity" above. While the exact breadth of copyright protection is not nailed down, it is certainly not "exact" by any stretch of the imagination or caselaw.
2. Can SCO prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the code was explicitly copied, was disguised, did not diverge and was not re-implemented.
Uh, what? First, SCO only has to show that it was more likely than not copied. Reasonable doubt is only for criminal trials. Second, again, it need not be copied exactly. Third, it need not be disguised. In fact, copyright is a strict-liability statute. Intent is completely irrelevant. Even if you are influenced subconsciously, you are liable. Independent creation is a complete defense, but not realistic here, I don't think. Fourth, I don't understand what you mean by divergence and re-implementation. It sounds like similarity or derivative works. In either case, your standard of exact copying is wrong. Derivative works are entitled to the same protection as the original.
3. Can SCO show a trade secret that was stolen?
Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.
We pretty much know that #1 is false
First, your #1 isn't the right test. Second, you know nothing until a jury tells you. It's a crapshoot like no other.
and that #2 is damn near impossible to prove.
Well, you have a strawman. You constructed an impossibly narrow and inaccurate test. Of course it's impossible to prove.
#3 is useless to them because TISC revealed the secret. They can sue TISC for that (if they have a leg to stand on), but they can't sue anyone else.
Again, nothing to do with copyright, which, with contract breach, is the heart of SCO's claims. I feel you might not be well-versed on these points.
Thus SCO is still performing barratry and they know it.
Barratry. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1 : the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state 2 : an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty on the part of a master of a ship or of the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo 3 : the persistent incitement of litigation
These guys make absolutely no sense. They're flailing their arms in the air and saying "You owe us money!" Let's pick apart each claim:
Actually, I think their arguments are internally consistent, if spurious. They're not flailing around mindlessly. Their claims are in unlitigated areas and over issues that depend on things like 1) disputed contracts and 2) highly technical subject matter. These things make it easier to bluster and, not coincidentally, easier to sell to a jury who has an innate sympathy for the small company being robbed and rubbed out by the Big Blue Behemoth. Let me just point out a couple things.
Hello? Copyrights are for "copy" protection. Not "patent" protection. If you invent something new and fail to patent it, I can re-implement it all I want, copyright or no.
"Infringement" is the term for impermissible use of both copyrighted and patented subject matter. And copyright absolutely extends to computer code. You cannot reimplement someone else's code at your whim. Read the shrinkwrap license sometime. It limits your use of someone else's copyrighted software. Patents are far from the only way to protect code. In fact, because copyright protection occurs without registration or notice, it's far easier to get than patent protection.
Again, do they have a patent? If they don't, then they should STFU.
Again, patents are not the only protection. SCO's claims have been rooted in copyright licensing from the start.
Oooo... it's similar! Well, that just cinches it, doesn't it. It's not like anyone would ever re-implement a design they liked. I better go take the wheels off my Chevy. It's too similar to a cart and horse.
"Substantial similarity" is the key phrase for infringement of copyright. I have neither the time nor inclination to give you a primer on copyright law; many are already available. Go read one.
Just to reiterate, SCO is not reading their own contracts. What IBM develops is IBMs. Plain and simple.
In fact, it's not that simple. If IBM licensed AIX and the right to continue to develop AIX -- i.e., create derivative works -- then it has that right. Until IBM breaches its contract, it may do exactly that. However, if IBM did breach the agreement by impermissibly giving away code, then SCO has recourse. Does that recourse involve the return of the copyrighted work (AIX) and all derivative works to the licensor? Whether all that happened and, if so, how the software is handled is the basis of the litigation. Go read the licensing agreements.
These guys ought to be tried and convicted for barratry, regardless of whether their legal counsel is this stupid or not.
Bah. "Barratry" is the best you've got? How about manipulating stock price for personal profit? The SEC is not exactly kind and fuzzy. Or filing a frivolous lawsuit? Judges handing out sanctions have a breadth of discretion in punishment that's positively heartwarming.
Slashdot Mirror
The data is pretty easy to explain based on the hypothesis that religion is motivated by an irrational fear of death...
That would neatly ignore the precept of many Christian religions that life itself is a gift from God. For the same reason that, for example, Catholics are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, extending life isn't an irrational fear of death. It is a desire to embrace every moment of an existence bestowed upon them by their Creator. To do otherwise is arguably to spurn it, or appear ungrateful for the fact that the person exists at all.
I find that to be a much more satisfying explanation than the plethora of smug, snarky posts like yours on this article. Everyone wants to project onto the study that the patients suddenly experienced doubt in their faith and were scared. I think that's what the posters want the situation to be, to the exclusion of other reasonable explanations.
Personally, I think the study doesn't have nearly enough sampling or data to draw any useful conclusions. Why not just ask the patients themselves why they opted for the life-extending measures?
Oh well. But don't let, you know, reality or alternative viewpoints get in the way of your bias.
Actually, compared to the Saturn V, the shuttle stack seems to jump off the pad.
It doesn't seem to... it does. The shuttle main engines are ignited 6-7 seconds before "0" or launch because they take that long to work up to their working thrust. If you ever see a close up of the orbiter during the final ten seconds, you'll see it rock a little from a slightly leaned-back angle to straight vertical as this happens.
The solid rocket boosters are bolted to the platform to prevent the shuttle stack from launching (or toppling) while that's happening. Imagine a car -- since this is /. -- spinning its tires in place before dropping the brake. That's what's happening. When the countdown hits 0, the SRBs have been ignited as well, and the shuttle is either going to be released or tear itself free. That's why those bolts are explosive. They pop off and the shuttle is gone.
The shuttle stack doesn't seem to leap off the pad, it really, really does.
It's interesting what you consider "a threat" at 17,000 mph in LEO. The U.S. Space Shuttle Orbiter was once struck by a fleck of paint traveling the opposite direction around the Earth. The piece of paint, about the size of a U.S. dime, went through one and a half of the three panes of inch-thick glass in one of the upper windows.
I can't say for certain, but I sincerely doubt we can track every dime-sized bit of detritus in LEO. Even the linked system states, "The radar can track an object the size of a basketball at a distance of more than 22,000 nm." At the speeds some things go, objects far smaller than a basketball can do catastrophic damage to orbiting satellites, vehicles, and humans.
If the photograph had been doctored to hide something or to give a wrong impression it would have been different.
I couldn't disagree with you more. As soon as you start to look at what the intent of the person altering (or ordering altered) a photograph is, you have to pass a value judgment over whether that intent was "pure", "righteous", "harmless", or whatever. That's a tricky path we can avoid altogether. What if the next photo is altered by the DoD because it shows soldiers committing a minor, victimless crime? Showing that would only "hurt America and the Army," so we just edit that bit out and reprimand the soldier, right? No thanks.
People generally expect photographs to be accurate, genuine depictions of the subject matter, especially when used in a journalistic context. I completely understand where the AP is coming from here. Their reputation takes a hit for publishing the altered photograph. I wouldn't want any new photos from the DoD until they were willing to commit to genuine, unaltered reproductions either. According to TFA, the Army said this one didn't violate any Army policies. The AP is perfectly reasonable for saying they're not accepting future photographs until the Army has a policy this would violate.
Might tend is the important part here. Since the answer could cause you to admit to violating a traffic law, you have to ask:
Is speeding, under certain circumstances or with other elements, a crime for which the defendant could be punished?
If so -- and I'm reasonably certain there's a host of criminal offenses to which that's a 'yes' -- then the answer to the question might tend to incriminate the defendant in some way. And that's a no-no. The admission need not be directly related to the matter at hand, but any admission that might tend incriminate the speaker.
----
IAAL, but I'm not your lawyer. If you want legal advice, hire one.
You are very, very wrong. In so many places.
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant."
McCarthy v. Arndstein, U.S. Supreme Court, 1924.
Not only "can" you call yourself, you have a constitutional right to testify if you choose. What you're thinking of regarding cross-examination is this: if you choose not to testify, a prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial cannot force you to do so. If you choose to do so, though, he can question you. You can still refuse to answer questions under the Fifth, even then.
The only time I can think of when you can be compelled to answer a question, where the answer may tend to incriminate you, is when you have already been given immunity from any charges that could be brought by the answer. In that case, a judge can compel testimony under thread of contempt. In any other situation, however, you can refuse to incriminate yourself.
(N.B. It's supposed to prevent you from being tortured to confess. How's that working out these days?)
I am a lawyer. If you're interested in the law, you should learn it correctly before trying to teach others, as with everything else.
Animated films can be submitted for both "Best Animated Feature" and "Best Picture". The two categories are not mutually exclusive, though I suspect voters may treat them that way. ("I'll vote for it for animated and pick a 'better' movie for best picture.")
I agree with you about genre splitting, but, honestly, I'm happy to see animated movies receiving some recognition as films and not just long cartoons. If you flip through a list of the winners of this category, you'll see films that have done quite a bit to educate the American public that animated movies aren't just for kids. Not that there isn't some way to go yet, certainly.
Hi!
A contract is, by definition, a bilateral agreement. The EULA is a contract offer, and if it is declined, there is NO contract between Sony and the user. What that means is that Sony is forcing a unilateral agreement onto a user who does not have a contract with Sony. That's a criminal case, not a civil case.
You're both right and wrong; it's how you look at the interaction. If Sony offers you a contract, and you decline, there's no contract. But Sony can't "force a unilateral agreement onto a user." What you mean, I think, is "Sony then does what it wants to -- what it said it would do under its half of the contract -- without your consent." Now that is trespass to your computer. It is meddling with your property without your consent. Trespass can have both criminal and civil consequences. The police can charge a trespasser with a crime and the property owner can file a civil lawsuit. This doesn't get into the state's deceptive practices act, which is up to the state AG to enforce.
Sony's defense to a claim of trespass could have been consent: the user allowed Sony to do things to the computer, as evinced by the contract. But there isn't one. Oops.
IANYourL
x= (b(+/-)sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a
Shouldn't that be "x= (-b(+/-)...)?
Sure, those things take years to master. But that's mastery. Does it take years to learn how to play chess? No. Does it take years to become a master of chess? Yes.
Learning how to accomplish tasks like adding a user and its options is simpler and takes far less time than learning how to write 'adduser.' Evaluate the book on the standard it sets for itself: learning how to do things. Don't judge it wanting because it doesn't teach the entire universe of how unix works.
The Chief Justice doesn't choose cases for the Court. A "yes" vote from any four justices is enough for the Court to hear the case. The parties petition, and 4 justices have to vote yes for a case to be granted cert.
The Chief Justice does, however, lead the discussion leading to decision, and, if in the majority, choose who writes the opinion. So, the Chief is not without sway, and usually leads like-minded judges.
The earlier post which said it's the best job ever was half right: you might still have to hear a case if you don't want to, but you never have to write a sentence unless you take the opinion for yourself.
And, a little more knowledge for the curious, Chief Justices usually try to put a 'theme' to their tenure. For example, Earl Warren's was "Person liberty" and Rehnquist's was "States' rights" or "States' dignity." It'll be interesting to see where Roberts goes.
IANAL...y.
Dude. I was told by a judge of a case where the jury in a rape case asked why DNA testing was never done on the semen. Why was this an unusual request? The defense was consent.
Thank you, CSI.
Written permission this is not.
n d
The song was written in 1940.[1] Guthrie died in 1967.[2] Because copyright registration -- and that's what this is -- only lasted 28 years, it had to be re-registered. Registration could only be done within 6 months of the expiration date, IIRC. That would mean it was re-registered by Guthrie's heirs in 1968 and not Guthrie.
He also didn't give up or license away his rights to the song for more than 28 years -- copyright law didn't let him. After the initial term, all rights reverted to him or his heirs. His heirs renewed it. Maybe not what he would have wanted, but it was their choice.
The upshot is: lay off Guthrie, and stick it to his progeny.
IANAL...y.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_is_Your_La
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie
Absolutely. Courts interpret laws as rationally as they can, but they aren't the place to decide what public policy is. That's exactly what Congress is supposed to do.
Ultimately, laws decide the balance of interests. That's not to say all laws come out balanced, just that Congress makes a decision of (say) exactly how much freedom to restrict in exchange for exactly how much security. The DMCA, for example, traded away our freedom to access and copy against the threat, even if unproven, of piracy. As long as the laws are constitutional, courts really are powerless to override balance-shifting laws, even in the face of long standing doctrine. Congress makes the laws, not the courts. (Although, Congress makes almost all the courts too.) In the case of copyright, Congress has almost unlimited discretion. The single best way to affect bills like this is to write your legislator(s) and vote. Relying on courts to later limit the damage or restore the older balance is misguided.
Sign up for the EFF Action Center. "Writing" your Congressman or Senator(s) can be as easy as signing and submitting an HTML form letter with your name and address. Maybe you don't want to be on a political mailing list -- that's understandable. Then leave off your name, but send it anyway.
Congress is supposed to be the people's branch of the federal government. Make them serve you.
This is, by turns, misleading and plain wrong.
I understand, but that breaks down even worse in SCO's favor. The litmus test is this:
1. Is the code EXACTLY the same?
This is not the litmus test. Copyrighted material need not be copied exactly for infringement. See that part on "substantial similarity" above. While the exact breadth of copyright protection is not nailed down, it is certainly not "exact" by any stretch of the imagination or caselaw.
2. Can SCO prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the code was explicitly copied, was disguised, did not diverge and was not re-implemented.
Uh, what? First, SCO only has to show that it was more likely than not copied. Reasonable doubt is only for criminal trials. Second, again, it need not be copied exactly. Third, it need not be disguised. In fact, copyright is a strict-liability statute. Intent is completely irrelevant. Even if you are influenced subconsciously, you are liable. Independent creation is a complete defense, but not realistic here, I don't think. Fourth, I don't understand what you mean by divergence and re-implementation. It sounds like similarity or derivative works. In either case, your standard of exact copying is wrong. Derivative works are entitled to the same protection as the original.
3. Can SCO show a trade secret that was stolen?
Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.
We pretty much know that #1 is false
First, your #1 isn't the right test. Second, you know nothing until a jury tells you. It's a crapshoot like no other.
and that #2 is damn near impossible to prove.
Well, you have a strawman. You constructed an impossibly narrow and inaccurate test. Of course it's impossible to prove.
#3 is useless to them because TISC revealed the secret. They can sue TISC for that (if they have a leg to stand on), but they can't sue anyone else.
Again, nothing to do with copyright, which, with contract breach, is the heart of SCO's claims. I feel you might not be well-versed on these points.
Thus SCO is still performing barratry and they know it.
Barratry. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1 : the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state
2 : an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty on the part of a master of a ship or of the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo
3 : the persistent incitement of litigation
[from http://www.m-w.com/]
They're not inciting litigation. They're instigating it. Furthermore, they haven't done it persistently, just one big, long case.
IANAL, but I have taken copyright and contract law classes. I am not Just Guessing here.
These guys make absolutely no sense. They're flailing their arms in the air and saying "You owe us money!" Let's pick apart each claim:
Actually, I think their arguments are internally consistent, if spurious. They're not flailing around mindlessly. Their claims are in unlitigated areas and over issues that depend on things like 1) disputed contracts and 2) highly technical subject matter. These things make it easier to bluster and, not coincidentally, easier to sell to a jury who has an innate sympathy for the small company being robbed and rubbed out by the Big Blue Behemoth. Let me just point out a couple things.
Hello? Copyrights are for "copy" protection. Not "patent" protection. If you invent something new and fail to patent it, I can re-implement it all I want, copyright or no.
"Infringement" is the term for impermissible use of both copyrighted and patented subject matter. And copyright absolutely extends to computer code. You cannot reimplement someone else's code at your whim. Read the shrinkwrap license sometime. It limits your use of someone else's copyrighted software. Patents are far from the only way to protect code. In fact, because copyright protection occurs without registration or notice, it's far easier to get than patent protection.
Again, do they have a patent? If they don't, then they should STFU.
Again, patents are not the only protection. SCO's claims have been rooted in copyright licensing from the start.
Oooo... it's similar! Well, that just cinches it, doesn't it. It's not like anyone would ever re-implement a design they liked. I better go take the wheels off my Chevy. It's too similar to a cart and horse.
"Substantial similarity" is the key phrase for infringement of copyright. I have neither the time nor inclination to give you a primer on copyright law; many are already available. Go read one.
Just to reiterate, SCO is not reading their own contracts. What IBM develops is IBMs. Plain and simple.
In fact, it's not that simple. If IBM licensed AIX and the right to continue to develop AIX -- i.e., create derivative works -- then it has that right. Until IBM breaches its contract, it may do exactly that. However, if IBM did breach the agreement by impermissibly giving away code, then SCO has recourse. Does that recourse involve the return of the copyrighted work (AIX) and all derivative works to the licensor? Whether all that happened and, if so, how the software is handled is the basis of the litigation. Go read the licensing agreements.
These guys ought to be tried and convicted for barratry, regardless of whether their legal counsel is this stupid or not.
Bah. "Barratry" is the best you've got? How about manipulating stock price for personal profit? The SEC is not exactly kind and fuzzy. Or filing a frivolous lawsuit? Judges handing out sanctions have a breadth of discretion in punishment that's positively heartwarming.
IANAL... y.