In college in the mid-80's, the 'grill' in the dorm that was open in the evenings had a few machines. Joust was one of them. My roommate, who was a bit Obsessive-Compulsive got hooked on joust. He'd go in there as soon as they opened and play until they shut down. Relatively soon, he could play an entire night on a single quarter. After a few weeks, the machine disappeared and something really lame showed up in its place.
Never confirmed, but my floor was convinced that Cliff was responsible for them pulling the machine.
That would technically be ok. Notice the footnote on his trades says: "1. This sale was effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 sales plan adopted by the reporting person." That means that he had set up a plan to sell stock at certain pre-determined times and that the sale would go through without any further interaction by him.
Before August of this year, executives are only required to file these plans at the end of the year. Broughton tends to sell shares at the beginning of the month, and we won't get to see the rules for this plan until Jan.
However, any execs beginning new plans or changing existing ones, beginning this month, are required to file that plan with the SEC within days. (Don't remember the exact number but two weeks or just under sounds right.) Unfortunately, I have read that the SEC will not have its online site set up to display those for months.
There was a mysql case about a year ago in which the GPL was a part of the pleadings. That case was settled out of court before it got very far, but based on reports of preliminary hearings the judge in the case seemed to think it was enforceable.
See this earlier Slashdot story for details on the lawsuit, though I can't find any reference right now to reports of the judge's attitude toward the GPL, but I remember having read of them somewhere. Does that make me like Darl and his super-secert code? I hope not!
Unfortunately for them, right now is the time between the close of last quarter and the official annoucement of results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this time period. Gotta love Red Hat's timing.
According to the press reports I've read, there is no mention in IBM's counterclaim that it has the right to sell derivative software created by it. Now, it is just possible that the press reports are not the result of a careful reading of the filing, but I am surprised there is no mention of that and would be even more surprised if that were not in IBM's filing.
SCO just announced their pricing for Linux licenses. Now that that is out of the way, are their GPL violoation lawsuits coming in addition to Red Hat style anti-FUD lawsuits?
"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003."
SCO will now get to counter sue, and can draw a major Linux player into a legal dispute it had no basis to drag it into before.
I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.
The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.
Actually, I think Red Hat made the right move. By suing first, they got to pick the venue. If they waited until SCO filed suit, then that choice would go to SCO. I've seen discussions on other boards that indicate the Deleware Federal Court is less likely to put up with BS and wants to move things along quickly than other Federal courts. (Ever notice how many corporations are incorporated in Deleware?)
So, Red Hat picks the venue. They also force SCO to fight major lawsuits in 2 different courts.
Plus, there have been reports that SCO's lawyers on the IBM suit are on a contingency basis. This will not be the case for lawyers defending SCO in a lawsuit. So, the Red Hat suit begins draining cash that SCO probably wasn't going through in its earlier suit.
Also, many have speculated that the whole SCO lawsuit was a stock pump and dump scheme, but right now SCO is in between closing the quarter and announcing the results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this period, so Red Hat has filed--an action likely to drive down the stock--at at time that the insiders are prevented from selling without drawing major SEC scrutiny.
All in all, I'd say it was a pretty brilliant move by Red Hat.
1. When you said there are thousands of files of "your" (ie SCO's) Intellectual Property in Linux, were you referring to IBM's copyrighted and patented code?
2. Isn't that a very liberal and deceptive use of the word "your"?
3. Were you intentionally trying to mislead investors, Linux users, and the general public by referring to it as "your" IP before your case with IBM even goes to trial?
4. Are you concerned that your deceptive use of the words "your" and "our(s)" will lead to class action lawsuits by investors?
5. Don't the clauses in ammendment X saying that IBM owns all work produced by IBM and that those works are not subject to the other restrictions in Ammendment X mean that IBM can donate its patented, copyrighted code to Linux?
6. If you and other SCO execs feel you have such a strong case, why have there been no executives cashing in options and holding them?
7. Assuming for the moment that IBM has violated your trade secrets, accourding to established IP law, wouldn't that simply mean that IBM was liable to you for damages, but that the 'secrets' are now out of the bag and there is no legal way to encumber Linux because of that?
8. Given the filing date on your copyright, isn't SCO enjoined from seeking statutory damages or fees and limited only to the much harder to prove actual damages in any copyright legal action against Linux?
9. How does SCO, a Unix company, expect to make use of Vultus, a web services company whose product works only in Internet Explorer for deployment on IIS servers as a slower than Java replacement for Java?
10. Sontag has publicly stated that JFS, RCU, and NUMA are copyrighted by IBM but that SCO has "control rights" over that code. Is that type of contract legal? Has the validity of such a contract ever been tested in court?
Compliments of martin_lvnv -
11. When was the last time you checked on the number of resellers and developers? Don't you think it might be time to update those figures?
I think what this means is that they can pick Linux and have a piece of paper supporting their choice. Got to cover their own backs I guess.
Better still the Defense Information Systems Agency is recommending that any Linux purchase support the LSB and that apps be written to the LSB.
So, not only is it now easier for government agencies to support Linux deployments, but they are going to force any Linux distributor doing business with the government into interoperability.
Usenet is still one of the best computer support resources available and Google Groups has unearthed the solution to innumerable problems for me. Like Slashdot, be prepared to sift through a lot of misinformation to find your answer,
And, unlike Slashdot, Usenet has a useful search capability in Google Groups.
"Remove mmio.c from repoditory [sic] since the code has been moved to the DLL. Reimplemented MMIO functions, as MS is too effing lazy to provide them under CE. Most of this is cribbed from the Wine Project."
That means that they have moved it to a library. Perhaps someone DID read the LGPL.
Check out the picture of the Vultus building. FYI, The Canopy Group is the parent company of both SCO and Vultus and apparently the owner of the building as well.
Can't wait to see the SEC filings on exactly what this purchase consisted of.
Someone just pointed this news release out on a SCO stock board. So, maybe they didn't buy it? Or maybe someone thought about the Enronesque overtones and decided to kill the deal.
If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.
If you do decide to file, don't forget to mention the recent Vultus purchase. Vultus is owned by The Canopy Group, the same people who own a large portion of SCO. Both SCO and Vultus are in the same Lindon, Utah building owned by The Canopy Group. Seems to me that an argument could be made for an Enron like shuffling of companies.
Make specious claims about SCO IP. Run up the stock price. Sell some of that and use the funds to purchase other companies in the portfolio. Book the profit.
A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it Autumn in August?
A post on the Yahoo SCOX board points to this note on the SCO website regarding SCO Forum that says it is postponed until Autumn 2003.
Is this an old note and do they think August is Autumn or is this the first clue that they are postponing it until later?
In college in the mid-80's, the 'grill' in the dorm that was open in the evenings had a few machines. Joust was one of them. My roommate, who was a bit Obsessive-Compulsive got hooked on joust. He'd go in there as soon as they opened and play until they shut down. Relatively soon, he could play an entire night on a single quarter. After a few weeks, the machine disappeared and something really lame showed up in its place.
Never confirmed, but my floor was convinced that Cliff was responsible for them pulling the machine.
That would technically be ok. Notice the footnote on his trades says: "1. This sale was effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 sales plan adopted by the reporting person." That means that he had set up a plan to sell stock at certain pre-determined times and that the sale would go through without any further interaction by him.
Before August of this year, executives are only required to file these plans at the end of the year. Broughton tends to sell shares at the beginning of the month, and we won't get to see the rules for this plan until Jan.
However, any execs beginning new plans or changing existing ones, beginning this month, are required to file that plan with the SEC within days. (Don't remember the exact number but two weeks or just under sounds right.) Unfortunately, I have read that the SEC will not have its online site set up to display those for months.
"Gotta love Red Hat's timing."
;-)
Hehe, and IBM's... I wonder if the timing was on purpose and part of their evil plan.
I suspect it was probably just fortuitous and both were actually timed to coincide with the LinuxWorld conference. It is very nice timing nonetheless.
There was a mysql case about a year ago in which the GPL was a part of the pleadings. That case was settled out of court before it got very far, but based on reports of preliminary hearings the judge in the case seemed to think it was enforceable.
See this earlier Slashdot story for details on the lawsuit, though I can't find any reference right now to reports of the judge's attitude toward the GPL, but I remember having read of them somewhere. Does that make me like Darl and his super-secert code? I hope not!
Hope SCO managers cashed in ALL of their stock
Unfortunately for them, right now is the time between the close of last quarter and the official annoucement of results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this time period. Gotta love Red Hat's timing.
According to the press reports I've read, there is no mention in IBM's counterclaim that it has the right to sell derivative software created by it. Now, it is just possible that the press reports are not the result of a careful reading of the filing, but I am surprised there is no mention of that and would be even more surprised if that were not in IBM's filing.
Anyone know of an online copy of the filing yet?
"For those users, SCO is offering an additional incentive. A single processor server license will jump to $1,399 after Oct. 15, Stowell said."
g /
http://www.itworld.com/Man/2685/030805scolicensin
SCO has just announced pricing for its Linux licensing scheme.
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003.
and
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
Another question I'd like to see asked is for a clearer explanation of that last sentence. I just can't think of any way that could make any sense.
SCO just announced their pricing for Linux licenses. Now that that is out of the way, are their GPL violoation lawsuits coming in addition to Red Hat style anti-FUD lawsuits?
"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003."
SCO will now get to counter sue, and can draw a major Linux player into a legal dispute it had no basis to drag it into before.
I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.
The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.
Actually, I think Red Hat made the right move. By suing first, they got to pick the venue. If they waited until SCO filed suit, then that choice would go to SCO. I've seen discussions on other boards that indicate the Deleware Federal Court is less likely to put up with BS and wants to move things along quickly than other Federal courts. (Ever notice how many corporations are incorporated in Deleware?)
So, Red Hat picks the venue. They also force SCO to fight major lawsuits in 2 different courts.
Plus, there have been reports that SCO's lawyers on the IBM suit are on a contingency basis. This will not be the case for lawyers defending SCO in a lawsuit. So, the Red Hat suit begins draining cash that SCO probably wasn't going through in its earlier suit.
Also, many have speculated that the whole SCO lawsuit was a stock pump and dump scheme, but right now SCO is in between closing the quarter and announcing the results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this period, so Red Hat has filed--an action likely to drive down the stock--at at time that the insiders are prevented from selling without drawing major SEC scrutiny.
All in all, I'd say it was a pretty brilliant move by Red Hat.
Reporters might want to consider this list of questions for the conference call today:
Note: Brazenly ripped off from a post on the SCOX Yahoo discussion board:
1. When you said there are thousands of files of "your" (ie SCO's) Intellectual Property in Linux, were you referring to IBM's copyrighted and patented code?
2. Isn't that a very liberal and deceptive use of the word "your"?
3. Were you intentionally trying to mislead investors, Linux users, and the general public by referring to it as "your" IP before your case with IBM even goes to trial?
4. Are you concerned that your deceptive use of the words "your" and "our(s)" will lead to class action lawsuits by investors?
5. Don't the clauses in ammendment X saying that IBM owns all work produced by IBM and that those works are not subject to the other restrictions in Ammendment X mean that IBM can donate its patented, copyrighted code to Linux?
6. If you and other SCO execs feel you have such a strong case, why have there been no executives cashing in options and holding them?
7. Assuming for the moment that IBM has violated your trade secrets, accourding to established IP law, wouldn't that simply mean that IBM was liable to you for damages, but that the 'secrets' are now out of the bag and there is no legal way to encumber Linux because of that?
8. Given the filing date on your copyright, isn't SCO enjoined from seeking statutory damages or fees and limited only to the much harder to prove actual damages in any copyright legal action against Linux?
9. How does SCO, a Unix company, expect to make use of Vultus, a web services company whose product works only in Internet Explorer for deployment on IIS servers as a slower than Java replacement for Java?
10. Sontag has publicly stated that JFS, RCU, and NUMA are copyrighted by IBM but that SCO has "control rights" over that code. Is that type of contract legal? Has the validity of such a contract ever been tested in court?
Compliments of martin_lvnv -
11. When was the last time you checked on the number of resellers and developers? Don't you think it might be time to update those figures?
Want to hear more details on the conspiracy and long term viability of Linux? Check out their conference call today:
Where: Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040
When: Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003
2:00 p.m. EDT, 11:00 a.m. PDT
I think what this means is that they can pick Linux and have a piece of paper supporting their choice. Got to cover their own backs I guess.
Better still the Defense Information Systems Agency is recommending that any Linux purchase support the LSB and that apps be written to the LSB.
So, not only is it now easier for government agencies to support Linux deployments, but they are going to force any Linux distributor doing business with the government into interoperability.
See this lengthy thread from years ago.
Usenet is still one of the best computer support resources available and Google Groups has unearthed the solution to innumerable problems for me. Like Slashdot, be prepared to sift through a lot of misinformation to find your answer,
And, unlike Slashdot, Usenet has a useful search capability in Google Groups.
Full comment quoted in the article:
"Remove mmio.c from repoditory [sic] since the code has been moved to the DLL. Reimplemented MMIO functions, as MS is too effing lazy to provide them under CE. Most of this is cribbed from the Wine Project."
That means that they have moved it to a library. Perhaps someone DID read the LGPL.
Check out the picture of the Vultus building. FYI, The Canopy Group is the parent company of both SCO and Vultus and apparently the owner of the building as well.
Can't wait to see the SEC filings on exactly what this purchase consisted of.
Someone just pointed this news release out on a SCO stock board. So, maybe they didn't buy it? Or maybe someone thought about the Enronesque overtones and decided to kill the deal.
Vultus as in the web services company that SCO purchased yesterday.
If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.
If you do decide to file, don't forget to mention the recent Vultus purchase. Vultus is owned by The Canopy Group, the same people who own a large portion of SCO. Both SCO and Vultus are in the same Lindon, Utah building owned by The Canopy Group. Seems to me that an argument could be made for an Enron like shuffling of companies.
Make specious claims about SCO IP. Run up the stock price. Sell some of that and use the funds to purchase other companies in the portfolio. Book the profit.
A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.
Doing some more copyright law searching.
Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP
Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
Either way that is too fast. Looks like another good argument for non-alphanumeric characters in your passwords.
A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.
Doing some more copyright law searching.
Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP [bromsun.com]
Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
I don't think MS would see even their current license as a requirement to pay SCO right now, if SCO claimed that Windows were infringing.
Seems more likely that MS would say, "Wait till you are sued." Which seems to be the general consensus for Linux users regarding SCO.