Check my posting & submission history--I'm quite familiar with Groklaw. Quartermass has long posted to GL and has been a constant source of good information.
So you're quite right; I'm sure that's him because he posted essentially the same information over on GL, and I've read all that information on GL prior to this.
Even if it wasn't, it's more substantiated evidence that SCO doesn't play by the rules (as anyone who saw those SCO shenanigans in the most recently unsealed filings already knows). Not to mention the incident recorded in my journal from one of the early GL stories where SCO tried to defame protesters...
Every time I think SCO can't sink any lower, I think about what I just thought and realize I'm crazy--I'm rather sure they can.
Well, google.fr might only be affected for *now* but due to the global scope of the Internet, if French viewers *can* get to google.com, etc. they're likely also liable for that.
Why? As a lawyer, you should know that on the Internet, pretty much everywhere is a potential venue for someone to bring action in. Only local regulations limiting scope of what they will consider can apply. Like that UK court that held US plaintiffs could sue US defendants for defammatory statements on a US website that could be read in the UK.
So they *cannot* comply with laws in all potential venues and actually do business.
Further, I don't buy the anti-American crap, but I don't buy this French BS either. I don't care how many countries have outlawed comparative advertising, but Google's use of it here is completely fair. While I feel like Google should start taking a hard line and blacklisting information, that would only degrade the quality of Google as a whole. Still, they could always do what they did with the DMCA notices & put up a link to the court papers about which URLs they're not allowed to show (because, ironically, those court papers *also* show, of necessity, what they were made to censor).
Please don't think me anti-French here, however, because such laws as these pervade Europe, and at least IMHO, they're all quite stupid, because they needlessly prohibit non-deceptive advertising.
The worrying part is that we won in the lower court, and SCOTUS likes to reverse the cases to which it grants cert (e.g. more than half the time they take a case, they reverse or remand it). Granted, there are other reasons for them taking the case ('granting cert'), but that brings me to the next point.
At least from what I've seen (IANAL), the court will be more impressed by the "actual" effects of this. In other words, whose economic arguement holds the most water with them. I haven't seen enough to impress me of the judge's technical knowledge, so I doubt they'll be able to see that, in effect, ALL of the economic arguements leveled against this service could be leveled against the Internet as a whole. Of course, I sincerely hope the lawyers make that case. The ONLY difference here is that the studios think of the Internet as having some use for them--mostly advertising, no doubt, but at least some use--and the filesharing apps as having none.
You want to help with this? Put every single damn public domain work you can on there, and mark it as such. Have the copyright to something? Put it up there with a notice that you, the copyright holder, are allowing distribution of your work. Don't have either? Go out there and look for as many *legal* files as you can. Document them, and do your best to publicise all the legal files available. Find information "pollution" put out there by the studios? Document it--it's a matter of them having "unclean hands."
But above all, show people all the *legitimate* users who would be shafted by arbitrary restrictions on how one might share files which could do no more than foist a legal fiction upon us, that somehow the file sharing programs are less "worthy" to exist than the internet, simply because they lower the bar to copying--a bar which is imaginary. The Internet cannot be controlled by legal fictions unless and until legal fiction can control how we think about the subject. The genie will not return to its bottle quietly.
You see, "fair use" is actually an affirmative defense to charges of copyright infringement (there are other types of fair use, actually, but those aren't at issue here).
So you actually break the law, in some sense--you are infringing the copyright--but your use of it was innocent, so there's no harm, no foul.
And Microsoft offered to indemnify it's customers.
What if the IP owners here start suing Windows USERS for their possession of output they have no license to (because Microsoft cannot have provided it).
Granted, that's slimy, but just how many lawsuits would Microsoft want to have to face, if someone started suing EVERY last Windows user, one by one?
And lest you say that no lawfirm would take on such a pointless case, may I refer you to SCO vs. Autozone? Not that, even then, they made that silly argument in court. *Hmm* It doesn't seem less frivolous to me, but what do I know, not being a lawyer?
I could've sworn there were some Novell ones in there, but you may be right about me being confused.
Anyhow, the Court has already said that Novell had a "persuasive" arguement, so how can the Court find malice in Novell's words but not its own?
*shrug* So that news still doesn't do much for me, but you may be right. I have a lot more hope about seeing this thing hit summary judgement, so that SCO gets only a (hopefully futile) appeal and is done (unless they were to win, which I personally find unlikely).
Well, it's in their corporate kit, which PJ of Groklaw explains better than I can. In essence, that's a bunch of files on all the board meetings, etc. the business conducts, to make sure (in theory, at least), that the corporate veil doesn't protect the people running it from liability when it shouldn't.
Novell didn't turn this over, presumably, because it wasn't necessary to do so earlier. The real trump card is what I mentioned in my post above--a way, at least if the Court buys it, to get rid of this whole damned case a lot more quickly:]
Since I know no one here RTFA, it might be nice if they'd given any indication of why this is some kind of trump card.
Frankly, the corporate kit isn't much of anything new (see Groklaw if you want to know what the hell the kit is--PJ explains it well). Novell already lined up pretty damn near everyone who had anything to do with that agreement to testify that SCO is full of it. SCO found *ONE* person who was part of the early part of the deal, who LEFT during it, and wasn't really able to contradict any of what Novell's witnesses said anyhow. Yeah, I know, it really does go to show you that Novell's stance on what they own isn't new, but they've already established this to my satisfaction six ways from Sunday...:] Of course, that's just good lawyering, and they do have good lawyers.
Now then, let's go on to the actual trump card. Novell found SCO including information outside of its original complaint. So what, you're probably thinking, but this is important. Due to some legal stuff (rules on parole evidence or something), Novell found a case that calls doing what SCO did a poor tactical maneuver. Basically, because of the crazy court rules for these things, the Court can convert Novell's motion for dismissal to one for summary judgement.
If they dismiss it (as they would now), SCO could refile with new, weird allegations they pull out of a hat (unless the judge dismisses it with prejudice, but then they have to show that *no* set of claims SCO could make could prevail... hard to do without ruling on the facts of the case, not just the law, as the jury has dominion over the facts).
If they go the summary judgement route, as Novell is urging, the Court gets to rule on the case here & now. Forget further wrangling, with that, the Court could rule on the case directly and SCO would have to appeal if the ruling went against it.
Now then, I don't claim to be a lawyer (I just read Groklaw, which is about as close as Slashdot often gets to having one), so I have no idea whether or not the Court will buy this. All I know is that it's an opportunity for the Court to get rid of SCO; something I'd do in a heartbeat, personally.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt that some of them will ever really reform. There are all too many people out there who you cannot trust the minute you turn your back on them...
Still, my primary concern with punishing them (yes, I think prison ought to be punishment as well as reform), is what you do with them afterwards. It's just not reasonable to lock all criminals up forever... Granted, I don't claim to have any solutions here, but I'm worried that all too often we only consider one aspect of the prisons, whether that be punishing them, reforming them, or whatever.
Do we *want* them comitting more crimes when their sentences end?
When I think of the importance of rehab, I don't think "oh, those poor little criminals, won't someone help them," I think "oh crap, what are we going to do with them when they get out?"
Here's what happened one of the last times they tried that trick:
Justice David Souter
Nominated by President Bush and sworn in Oct. 9, 1990. At the time of his nomination, Souter, now 61, was a virtual unknown, a government lawyer. He quickly became a disappointment to conservatives and now often sides with the court's liberal wing.
CNN Money is reporting a new and improved MyDoom variant which is spread by a hyperlink in email. Clicking the link connects the user to an infected machine, which exploits a recently discovered buffer overflow in Internet Explorer.
What I find more interesting here is that they're moving the virus data "out of band" -- they're no longer transmitting the virus in the message, which may make things harder on the AV companies. How do you filter out all emails that merely contain links to websites? Worse, the links are to infected computers.
Imagine a virus that said: "Check out this cool website I found!" and nothing more? Not a lot to filter out from your email there:/ (then again, SPF should help some...).
Funny thing is, I had this idea and wondered how long it would take for the virus writers to think of it, too. Hrm, only took a few months. Wonder how long it'll take them to generalize this and realize that email isn't the only way to send content to people? Granted, it's one of the most popular, but if the virus writers ever develop the skills to make them adapt to as many services as I can envision... Ugh, at least I'm not on a platform directly affected by this crap (well, except for the nuisance virus emails... meh).
You're right, I am oversimplifying, but the jist of it all is that it still helps them have a higher price for most people and still get the bargain hunters:]
Why have such a pledge if you don't intend to honor it? Because it allows you to rig the game so that you, in effect, collude with your competitors and all the players on the selling side can make more money!
It's all economics. Game theory, to be precise.
In a game where price is the only determining factor between two goods, and you have at least one competitor, you are forced to sell your good at rock-bottom prices, or they'll go to another store. Thus, the Nash equilibrium of this game is that you all have to sell the item for no profit (assuming you all get it for the same price--otherwise, you just undercut the next lowest bid by one cent or the least you can & steal all their customers).
Now then, when you introduce this pledge, it turns out that all the people selling the product can, in effect, collude and sell it for a higher price! Sadly, I forget all the details of how it works out in recalculating the Nash equilibrium, and my game theory textbook is probably propping something up just now (sorry, I took that class quite a while ago now--the textbook on it is nowhere to be found). However, I can tell you for sure that this was one of their examples on how "hyper-competetive" seeming strategies can actually be anti-competetive in effect.
The good news? They're not the only ones who can change the rules, as we saw from some of the ways people got back at them. In fact, the article mentioned one person doing this to buy things at a loss from them just because they wanted to hurt the store (this in the Wall Street Journal article I saw in a comment here).
It's funny, too, because one of the other quotes was from them worrying that culturally, they might be seen as consumer-hostile. A worry it would seem is well-founded, given how many people seem to hate that store.
Darl McBride used to complain a lot that his old friends in Novell had left and thus he had the rug pulled out from under him. Stone wrote several letters, in effect, telling Darl to bugger off when he tried to get Novell on his side at the start of the IBM litigation.
We have what's described as an anonymous article, based apparently on pure speculation, on a free webhost, that purports to identify a virus author that, SFAIK, has not yet been arrested?
Impressive. I can't believe Slashdot got such a big scoop on this one;-]
Online, it can come down to whether the other people at the table are in collusion with one another...
And no, I don't think cryptograph can fix that problem, because out of band communications (phone, IM, etc.) will always be available so long as the players cannot be monitored.
Not to mention the issue of whether or not you can trust the casino. I'm not saying you can't necessarily, but more that I just wouldn't unless we were all there together, in person.
Heh, while you're right that calling someone a troll doesn't make them one, grandparent is right.
Yes, Groklaw does censor the comments. PJ is up front about what she deletes and why. PJ does have a bias against SCO, but she's clearly able to separate fact from opinion, and does so quite well. She gives us lots of facts to work with. This article was pure innuendo. It appears to be nothing more than SCO talking about sealed documents to the press.
Now, did you have any valid criticism of the site, or did you just want to point out that calling someone a troll doesn't refute what they say (though the easily verifiable facts I've posted above should take care of most of them)?
Hypo- is a prefix meaning less than (e.g. hypothermia--not being warm enough, but there's also it's opposite hyper-, as in hyperthermia, or being too hot).
So, hypotypical would be less than typical? Actually, given the media, hypertypical would be a better word--shoddy journalism is FAR too common:[
I don't dispute that the man seems to me like he has a screw loose (and that just from the posts I've seen by him--there are plenty of others who offer evidence that would tend to support the idea that he's clear out of his mind).
Anyhow, if you read this Groklaw story, you'll see that there may be a SCO lawyer connection here. That might be bad, because when they talked to O'Gara, they sure went on a lot about the privilege log and such concerning that privileged document SCO tried to read into the public record (which is *bad*). In other words, it *really* looks like SCO is leaking things it ought not to the media. Now, I can't prove any of that, but I would say that it's certainly beyond the appearance of impropriety to even discuss that with the media.
As for Merkey, here, I doubt he was behind the O'Gara stories here--I suspect O'Gara and a source close to SCO were. Expect IBM to be on the ball here and to start seeing just *what* all SCO has told the media. Now then, you're probably right about him coming up with more wild stories (buying Linux for $50,000 and putting it under a BSD license to "save" it... after he removes all the "SCO-owned" bits).
In other words, we can expect a LOT of crazy stuff before this story is over:] Damn, someone ought to make a movie out of it, though I guess it'd be hard to explain the importance of it to people who didn't follow this...
Slashdot Mirror
Check my posting & submission history--I'm quite familiar with Groklaw. Quartermass has long posted to GL and has been a constant source of good information.
So you're quite right; I'm sure that's him because he posted essentially the same information over on GL, and I've read all that information on GL prior to this.
Even if it wasn't, it's more substantiated evidence that SCO doesn't play by the rules (as anyone who saw those SCO shenanigans in the most recently unsealed filings already knows). Not to mention the incident recorded in my journal from one of the early GL stories where SCO tried to defame protesters...
Every time I think SCO can't sink any lower, I think about what I just thought and realize I'm crazy--I'm rather sure they can.
Well, google.fr might only be affected for *now* but due to the global scope of the Internet, if French viewers *can* get to google.com, etc. they're likely also liable for that.
Why? As a lawyer, you should know that on the Internet, pretty much everywhere is a potential venue for someone to bring action in. Only local regulations limiting scope of what they will consider can apply. Like that UK court that held US plaintiffs could sue US defendants for defammatory statements on a US website that could be read in the UK.
So they *cannot* comply with laws in all potential venues and actually do business.
Further, I don't buy the anti-American crap, but I don't buy this French BS either. I don't care how many countries have outlawed comparative advertising, but Google's use of it here is completely fair. While I feel like Google should start taking a hard line and blacklisting information, that would only degrade the quality of Google as a whole. Still, they could always do what they did with the DMCA notices & put up a link to the court papers about which URLs they're not allowed to show (because, ironically, those court papers *also* show, of necessity, what they were made to censor).
Please don't think me anti-French here, however, because such laws as these pervade Europe, and at least IMHO, they're all quite stupid, because they needlessly prohibit non-deceptive advertising.
Yeah, but their vacuum cleaners just blow ;-]
Just be glad you don't have DJB, or he'd make you find and cryptographically deny 10 stupid posts ;-]
If anyone asks, I'll cryptographically deny this new meme.
The worrying part is that we won in the lower court, and SCOTUS likes to reverse the cases to which it grants cert (e.g. more than half the time they take a case, they reverse or remand it). Granted, there are other reasons for them taking the case ('granting cert'), but that brings me to the next point.
At least from what I've seen (IANAL), the court will be more impressed by the "actual" effects of this. In other words, whose economic arguement holds the most water with them. I haven't seen enough to impress me of the judge's technical knowledge, so I doubt they'll be able to see that, in effect, ALL of the economic arguements leveled against this service could be leveled against the Internet as a whole. Of course, I sincerely hope the lawyers make that case. The ONLY difference here is that the studios think of the Internet as having some use for them--mostly advertising, no doubt, but at least some use--and the filesharing apps as having none.
You want to help with this? Put every single damn public domain work you can on there, and mark it as such. Have the copyright to something? Put it up there with a notice that you, the copyright holder, are allowing distribution of your work. Don't have either? Go out there and look for as many *legal* files as you can. Document them, and do your best to publicise all the legal files available. Find information "pollution" put out there by the studios? Document it--it's a matter of them having "unclean hands."
But above all, show people all the *legitimate* users who would be shafted by arbitrary restrictions on how one might share files which could do no more than foist a legal fiction upon us, that somehow the file sharing programs are less "worthy" to exist than the internet, simply because they lower the bar to copying--a bar which is imaginary. The Internet cannot be controlled by legal fictions unless and until legal fiction can control how we think about the subject. The genie will not return to its bottle quietly.
That, I guess, is a matter of semantics.
You see, "fair use" is actually an affirmative defense to charges of copyright infringement (there are other types of fair use, actually, but those aren't at issue here).
So you actually break the law, in some sense--you are infringing the copyright--but your use of it was innocent, so there's no harm, no foul.
Damn, I knew I should've patented O(1) and O(n lg n) searching. Oh, and O(n^2) to cover quicksort (thought its average case is faster).
And Microsoft offered to indemnify it's customers.
What if the IP owners here start suing Windows USERS for their possession of output they have no license to (because Microsoft cannot have provided it).
Granted, that's slimy, but just how many lawsuits would Microsoft want to have to face, if someone started suing EVERY last Windows user, one by one?
And lest you say that no lawfirm would take on such a pointless case, may I refer you to SCO vs. Autozone? Not that, even then, they made that silly argument in court. *Hmm* It doesn't seem less frivolous to me, but what do I know, not being a lawyer?
I could've sworn there were some Novell ones in there, but you may be right about me being confused.
Anyhow, the Court has already said that Novell had a "persuasive" arguement, so how can the Court find malice in Novell's words but not its own?
*shrug* So that news still doesn't do much for me, but you may be right. I have a lot more hope about seeing this thing hit summary judgement, so that SCO gets only a (hopefully futile) appeal and is done (unless they were to win, which I personally find unlikely).
Well, it's in their corporate kit, which PJ of Groklaw explains better than I can. In essence, that's a bunch of files on all the board meetings, etc. the business conducts, to make sure (in theory, at least), that the corporate veil doesn't protect the people running it from liability when it shouldn't.
:]
Novell didn't turn this over, presumably, because it wasn't necessary to do so earlier. The real trump card is what I mentioned in my post above--a way, at least if the Court buys it, to get rid of this whole damned case a lot more quickly
Since I know no one here RTFA, it might be nice if they'd given any indication of why this is some kind of trump card.
:] Of course, that's just good lawyering, and they do have good lawyers.
Frankly, the corporate kit isn't much of anything new (see Groklaw if you want to know what the hell the kit is--PJ explains it well). Novell already lined up pretty damn near everyone who had anything to do with that agreement to testify that SCO is full of it. SCO found *ONE* person who was part of the early part of the deal, who LEFT during it, and wasn't really able to contradict any of what Novell's witnesses said anyhow. Yeah, I know, it really does go to show you that Novell's stance on what they own isn't new, but they've already established this to my satisfaction six ways from Sunday...
Now then, let's go on to the actual trump card. Novell found SCO including information outside of its original complaint. So what, you're probably thinking, but this is important. Due to some legal stuff (rules on parole evidence or something), Novell found a case that calls doing what SCO did a poor tactical maneuver. Basically, because of the crazy court rules for these things, the Court can convert Novell's motion for dismissal to one for summary judgement.
If they dismiss it (as they would now), SCO could refile with new, weird allegations they pull out of a hat (unless the judge dismisses it with prejudice, but then they have to show that *no* set of claims SCO could make could prevail... hard to do without ruling on the facts of the case, not just the law, as the jury has dominion over the facts).
If they go the summary judgement route, as Novell is urging, the Court gets to rule on the case here & now. Forget further wrangling, with that, the Court could rule on the case directly and SCO would have to appeal if the ruling went against it.
Now then, I don't claim to be a lawyer (I just read Groklaw, which is about as close as Slashdot often gets to having one), so I have no idea whether or not the Court will buy this. All I know is that it's an opportunity for the Court to get rid of SCO; something I'd do in a heartbeat, personally.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt that some of them will ever really reform. There are all too many people out there who you cannot trust the minute you turn your back on them...
Still, my primary concern with punishing them (yes, I think prison ought to be punishment as well as reform), is what you do with them afterwards. It's just not reasonable to lock all criminals up forever... Granted, I don't claim to have any solutions here, but I'm worried that all too often we only consider one aspect of the prisons, whether that be punishing them, reforming them, or whatever.
Why is rehab so unimportant?
Do we *want* them comitting more crimes when their sentences end?
When I think of the importance of rehab, I don't think "oh, those poor little criminals, won't someone help them," I think "oh crap, what are we going to do with them when they get out?"
(Source)
CNN Money is reporting a new and improved MyDoom variant which is spread by a hyperlink in email. Clicking the link connects the user to an infected machine, which exploits a recently discovered buffer overflow in Internet Explorer.
:/ (then again, SPF should help some...).
What I find more interesting here is that they're moving the virus data "out of band" -- they're no longer transmitting the virus in the message, which may make things harder on the AV companies. How do you filter out all emails that merely contain links to websites? Worse, the links are to infected computers.
Imagine a virus that said: "Check out this cool website I found!" and nothing more? Not a lot to filter out from your email there
Funny thing is, I had this idea and wondered how long it would take for the virus writers to think of it, too. Hrm, only took a few months. Wonder how long it'll take them to generalize this and realize that email isn't the only way to send content to people? Granted, it's one of the most popular, but if the virus writers ever develop the skills to make them adapt to as many services as I can envision... Ugh, at least I'm not on a platform directly affected by this crap (well, except for the nuisance virus emails... meh).
You're right, I am oversimplifying, but the jist of it all is that it still helps them have a higher price for most people and still get the bargain hunters :]
> Unfortunately it makes TV a little harder to watch.
;P
Tape it to the back
Why have such a pledge if you don't intend to honor it? Because it allows you to rig the game so that you, in effect, collude with your competitors and all the players on the selling side can make more money!
It's all economics. Game theory, to be precise.
In a game where price is the only determining factor between two goods, and you have at least one competitor, you are forced to sell your good at rock-bottom prices, or they'll go to another store. Thus, the Nash equilibrium of this game is that you all have to sell the item for no profit (assuming you all get it for the same price--otherwise, you just undercut the next lowest bid by one cent or the least you can & steal all their customers).
Now then, when you introduce this pledge, it turns out that all the people selling the product can, in effect, collude and sell it for a higher price! Sadly, I forget all the details of how it works out in recalculating the Nash equilibrium, and my game theory textbook is probably propping something up just now (sorry, I took that class quite a while ago now--the textbook on it is nowhere to be found). However, I can tell you for sure that this was one of their examples on how "hyper-competetive" seeming strategies can actually be anti-competetive in effect.
The good news? They're not the only ones who can change the rules, as we saw from some of the ways people got back at them. In fact, the article mentioned one person doing this to buy things at a loss from them just because they wanted to hurt the store (this in the Wall Street Journal article I saw in a comment here).
It's funny, too, because one of the other quotes was from them worrying that culturally, they might be seen as consumer-hostile. A worry it would seem is well-founded, given how many people seem to hate that store.
Darl McBride used to complain a lot that his old friends in Novell had left and thus he had the rug pulled out from under him. Stone wrote several letters, in effect, telling Darl to bugger off when he tried to get Novell on his side at the start of the IBM litigation.
I wonder how this affects that?
We have what's described as an anonymous article, based apparently on pure speculation, on a free webhost, that purports to identify a virus author that, SFAIK, has not yet been arrested?
;-]
Impressive. I can't believe Slashdot got such a big scoop on this one
Online, it can come down to whether the other people at the table are in collusion with one another...
And no, I don't think cryptograph can fix that problem, because out of band communications (phone, IM, etc.) will always be available so long as the players cannot be monitored.
Not to mention the issue of whether or not you can trust the casino. I'm not saying you can't necessarily, but more that I just wouldn't unless we were all there together, in person.
Err, that's the thing, people have questioned whether it *was* a mistake.
Then again, even if it wasn't, I suppose they could clean up their act. *shrug*
Heh, while you're right that calling someone a troll doesn't make them one, grandparent is right.
Yes, Groklaw does censor the comments. PJ is up front about what she deletes and why. PJ does have a bias against SCO, but she's clearly able to separate fact from opinion, and does so quite well. She gives us lots of facts to work with. This article was pure innuendo. It appears to be nothing more than SCO talking about sealed documents to the press.
Now, did you have any valid criticism of the site, or did you just want to point out that calling someone a troll doesn't refute what they say (though the easily verifiable facts I've posted above should take care of most of them)?
Hypo- is a prefix meaning less than (e.g. hypothermia--not being warm enough, but there's also it's opposite hyper-, as in hyperthermia, or being too hot).
:[
So, hypotypical would be less than typical? Actually, given the media, hypertypical would be a better word--shoddy journalism is FAR too common
I don't dispute that the man seems to me like he has a screw loose (and that just from the posts I've seen by him--there are plenty of others who offer evidence that would tend to support the idea that he's clear out of his mind).
:] Damn, someone ought to make a movie out of it, though I guess it'd be hard to explain the importance of it to people who didn't follow this...
Anyhow, if you read this Groklaw story, you'll see that there may be a SCO lawyer connection here. That might be bad, because when they talked to O'Gara, they sure went on a lot about the privilege log and such concerning that privileged document SCO tried to read into the public record (which is *bad*). In other words, it *really* looks like SCO is leaking things it ought not to the media. Now, I can't prove any of that, but I would say that it's certainly beyond the appearance of impropriety to even discuss that with the media.
As for Merkey, here, I doubt he was behind the O'Gara stories here--I suspect O'Gara and a source close to SCO were. Expect IBM to be on the ball here and to start seeing just *what* all SCO has told the media. Now then, you're probably right about him coming up with more wild stories (buying Linux for $50,000 and putting it under a BSD license to "save" it... after he removes all the "SCO-owned" bits).
In other words, we can expect a LOT of crazy stuff before this story is over