"If, however, the court orders SCO to show their cards or get out of Dodge, then SCO's done real fast! SUN and Microsoft won't send them any money if they cannot be a "legitimate" source of FUD against Linux."
If the court acts responsibly, they should act to make SCO show that they HAVE a case before wasting the court's time (and taxpayer money) for the next year or two). That is, in effect what it's done by imposing the 30 day deadline for them to show discovery.
I suspect there is a point where Microsoft and Sun won't be able to openly pump the SCO FUD machine. After all, they have investors (and regulators) to answer to as well, and they would have a hard time justifying value for the money.
States that have settled with Microsoft (even the Feds) could say that them directly funding a slander/libel/barratry campaign against their sole viable competitor is a violation of the settlements. It could open a HUGE can of worms for them, and lead to tougher sanctions.
I'd think that states with Linux businesses should right now be heavily lobbied by those businesses to make just that argument...
"SCOX is mostly held by insiders. And they're selling.
I hate to be a pedantic bastard, but if the SCO insiders sell their stock, won't that mean that at some point the shareholders won't be insiders anymore?"
Most of the sales are of stock options excercised. If I'm not mistaken, these shares are "new" shares issued, sold to the "insider" at the option price (some have excersized PENNY options) which they then dump at the current price.
I suppose this would create more shares out there which would not be owned by insiders, but they are a pittance compared to the number held by Canopy.
Besides, one wonders WHO is buying these shares as they get dumped... Someone posting on/. once posted info that a company controlled by Melinda Gates was swallowing them up when the SCOX price fell...
Not to mention, threatening your OWN customers isn't a very smart thing to do.
No matter WHAT happens, SCO is a doomed company. Even if they win, the cash they get from IBM will be a one time thing, they have so destroyed their reputation they will never be able to do business again.
Even IF their allegations about Linux are proven, they will eventually be FORCED to reveal what is infringing, which will allow Linus, et all to get it out of the kernel. Linux will be damaged, so will Linux business, but the problem will be resolved and no Linux user will need to pay SCO.
Now, we know they have yet to provide _ANY_ evidence that hasn't been quickly made them look stupid. Even IF the doomesday scenario happens, SCO's behavior has made it virtually impossible for them to get the damages they seek (as they've made no effort to mitigate damages as they are required to do under the law), so any court victory will likely be barely enough to pay their lawyers (if that) and the code will be revealed and ripped from Linux.
Any way you cut it, SCO is doomed, and anyone betting on the SCO lottery would be better off buying the Powerball... You are more likely to win that than you are as a SCO investor to see ANY return on any money they get from this lawsuit (it will all go to their lawyers) or from future earnings (there won't be any).
I'd say these are the biggest tech flops that I can remember (in no particular order) that the article didn't mention:
1. Microchannel (PS/2), IBM's attempt to force a proprietary bus on the market that it could get royalties from flopped miserably, though Microchannel was FAR better than ISA, and had features we didn't get until years later when PCI became the standard (such as jumperless, plug and play configuration)
2. OS/2. Again, like Microchannel, technically far superior to Windows/DOS, but out marketed. These twin disasters of the late 80's/90's nearly did IBM in and taught them a lesson they seem to have learned from.
3. Internet appliances (Cobalt, etc). Just as the article hits on WebTV and other internet computers as being done in by lower priced PC's, internet appliance servers were done in by not being cheaper ultimately than lower priced servers.
4..COMs During the insane years of 1996-2000, tons and tons of people ranging from ordinary people looking to get rich on.com IPO's to businessmen who should have known better, threw away many billions of dollars on companies that never had any plan for making money. This is quite likely the worst disaster of all time for the IT industry, one that we aren't likely to fully recover from until the NEXT recession-recovery cycle...
5. The DMCA/silly patents/IP law. The cummulative effect of the race to give ownership of every idea to the highest corporate bidder is a disaster in the making. One that could cause the technology industry in the United States to collapse as suddenly and completely as traditional heavy industry did in the 1970's...
" Taxes subsidize regular bulk mail. So your point is incorrect. In addition, no one has provided a way for email senders to pay, to it's kind of silly to ask email senders to pay when there is no mechanism is available."
Simple. Send them a check first. If they cash it, then you are justified in sending your "copy".
There you go, a mechanism for YOU to pay for what you are otherwise stealing!
Circumventing spam filters using YOUR "logic" would seem to justify many things.
Such as breaking and entering. Hacking their network. Stealing the resources of a company. Sure, they have a FIREWALL in place, but if the REALLY didn't want you in their system they wouldn't have one in the first place, right?
Your sleazebag company is definately on my shitlist.
PERIOD. You have no right, moral or otherwise, to my bandwidth and inbox. Furthermore, your company and product will automatically be blacklisted by myself, and will be slammed within my circle.
I have never once bought anything that someone solicited me by e-mail for, and I never will.
I want my e-mail account to be used only to contact those I want to contact, and those I want to contact me. If you send me solicitations of ANY KIND, without prior consent, you are a spammer, and are no better than Ralsky.
Doing so is futile. So, why would you WANT to send me spam?
Furthermore, my computer and network skills are excellent. VERY excellent. Do you really want to make people like me mad?
"You mean that we might see more than 98% of incumbents re-elected [commoncause.org]?
A 5-1 funding advantage is what does that. Spamming voters can't exactly make it worse."
Don't forget that so-called "campaign finance reform" now makes it illegal for you and me to pool our money to criticize an incumbent 30-90 days before an election in any meaningful way that might be seen or heard by other voters...
That law should have been called the "Incumbency Protection Illegal Constitutional Convention of 2002".
Limiting contributions to candidates is one thing. Implying that *I* am part of the corruption problem if *I* and others choose to excercise free speech to criticize a politician is offensive, insulting, and flat out WRONG.
I'm still stunned the Supreme Court upheld it. Expect more and more laws from Congress abridging the freedom of speech, now that the wedge has been driven.
I'm waiting for the CFR "website blackout" law that will be next. We will have to black out our poltiical commentary, blogs, message boards, etc, Google will have to disable search results that hit critique of a candidate, etc...
If they want to keep us informed... PUT UP A WEBSITE. That way, if I want to go there, I can.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that we, the people, are obligated to listen to ANYONE in our government. The reverse, however is true though.
" Spam is generally defined as being `unsolicited commercial email`. How spam from the political wing of the armed forces can be described as commercial is anyone's guess."
Consider that the government is the largest business in the country. It takes in more money, and spends more money than any other. It is one of, if not the largest advertisers. It tries to sell services. It tries to get you to let it control more of your life every day.
The only difference between the government and a corporation is that the government has guns. LOTS of guns. And the authority to back up it's EULA with deadly force;)
" I think spammers are going to start a bunch of lil grassroots political parties. They will band together and form the penis party, and sell penis creams, pills, and lord knows what else to "support" the party.
The only real solution is to have terrorists start using spam to fund their operations... only with that boogieman out of the closet will congress do anything about spam"
Don't be so sure that terrorists aren't already into spam... Or at least into profiting off the fradulent "products" that 99% of spam seems to hawk...
Terrorist groups are the new mafia in the world. The underworld tends to fund itself by the illegal. IMHO, ppammers like Ralsky would gladly sell spam services to Al Queida for a fast buck to hawk fake penis pills supplied from some Palestinian placebo factory, that is, if his observed morals are consistent...
I consider spam ITSELF to be a form of terrorism. It has made my e-mail services virtually useless. Spam is now up to 90% of all the e-mail I receive. That is up from 60% only 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, rounding them up and holding them in Cuba without trial and without access to lawyers (while blasting inane commercials at them 24/7) is too good for them.
Politicians shouldn't be trying to influence me. I should be influencing THEM. But in the "nanny state" we are becoming, more and more people, unfortunately, have the misguided idea that it's the government's (and hence, the politician's) job to TAKE CARE OF US...
Let them run ads and put up signs at election time, as that's stuff I can CHOOSE to eyeball or listen to. But they don't need to be calling me or spamming me. THAT, to me is a government invasion of my privacy.
Typical of a group of politicians who have been in office, and therefore power, too long...
Write laws that have no prohibitions on THEMSELVES. This was one of the big things the Democrats were doing in the 40 years they ran Congress. And changing things to that Congress had to live under the laws it passed was one of Newt's biggest planks in the "Contract for America".
(Congress used to be exempt from, among other laws: The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Social Security Act, and the OSHA Act.)
Leave them in power 10 years and they act the same way...
I'm beginning to think the best strategy is to always vote against incumbents. No matter what the party of their particular beliefs.
Note too the implications that the new (illegal, but upheld anyway) CFR "Amendment" to the Constitution can prohibit what can be said via e-mail 90 days before an election...
So, is it soon to be illegal for me to say anything negative about Robert K. Byrd 90 days before an election on MY OWN website?
Scary stuff. Don't say I didn't warn you people either. CFR and the misguided Supreme Court just allowed a wedge to be inserted into the first amendment's protection of our right to criticize the government. Sledgehammers are being readied to drive that wedge further...
When Congress exempts ITSELF from a law it expects us peasants to live under, it's safe to say it's a bad law they are passing.
You are absolutely right on this. I admin Linux, Windows, and Novell servers. Windows Server is just as difficult to set up and admin as the other two, that is, to do it RIGHT.
But the GUI makes one think it's easier. Sure, anyone can install Windows Server. And any script kiddie or virus author will take it down within days.
" . ..but only if you keep your knives in a government-approved Knife Safe, otherwise you were "negligent". Even the butter knives.
It's a good thing we don't get ALL the Government we pay for: can you imagine policies like this with COMPETENT Government employees and enforcement ????"
This is why I fear the application of technology, particularly in spying/monitoring, etc..
Now, instead of a lazy, incompetent bureaucrat who can't be bothered to do their job enforcing the thousands upon thousands of regulations and laws, we have machines do it and collect it neatly for the government.
Why do you think cops spend more time setting speed traps than they do helping motorists? Tickets and fines lead to promotions.
And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them? Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.
Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.
And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...
Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...
All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!
Looks a lot like a BSA stormtrooper threat letter to me... Certify that you are in compliance...
Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.
Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!
If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.
They couldn't even do that if the ruling stands... The RIAA would be proceeding from information improperly obtained, and thus, any attempt to REOBTAIN that evidence by legal means would themselves be tainted.
Just as the police can't conduct an illegal search, have a court throw it out, then use the knowledge gained to get that evidence legally to use in the case.
Basically the court is saying that you can't have subpoena power without a lawsuit. And I don't see how that could be overturned...
" can forsee it... they will continue suing Lindows in every third world country that they can if and when they lose in Finland, Sweden, and NL (what I read is this is only a preliminary injuction, and not a closed case)... Next stop - Micronesia!"
And the only way Lindows can stop this is by suing MS in the United States.
Since MS has already lost their trademark fight here, I think that US courts will take a dim view of what they are doing elsewhere. Yes, what MS does outside the USA technically isn't in their jurisdiction, but MS is a US company. As is Lindows. And MS is bound by the terms of the antitrust settlement.
Lindows is attempting to compete with them on the x86 desktop, where MS has been judged to have a monopoly. Microsoft is attempting to hinder that competition using bogus trademark claims that thanks to their earlier loss, have no standing in the US.
MS lost their attempt to do this in the USA very badly. Indeed, the judge was even musing if they deserved trademark protection for the name "Windows" at ALL.
Lindows could file suit to attack their "Windows" trademark in the US, and offer to drop it only if MS agrees to quit these nusiance suits.
Since both are US companies, I also don't see why Lindows couldn't file an unfair competition suit against Microsoft in the US, along with claims they are violating thier anti-trust settlement.
The UN is worse. They are a bunch of mindless bureaucrats who are a waste of oxygen. They are less trustworthy with regulating the Internet than Michael Jackson is with your kids.
Obviously they wouldn't let the ICANN guy in because this meeting is about REPLACING them. While I think ICANN NEEDS replacing, the UN is ever LESS DEMOCRATIC than ICANN, even LESS accountable, and even more corrupt.
If that code was on a disc he bought, it certainly WAS his property.
Even the draconian DMCA is supposed to allow reverse engineering for interoperability, though that clause has been ignored out of it by fascist pigs like Judge Kaplan of the DeCSS case.
It is a question of private property rights: Do I OWN this when I pay my cash, and take it home, or is the seller still allowed to keep ownership?
I'm also not at all happy with Norweigin law here... What kind of justice system do they have when the government, with it's UNLIMITED financial resources (they print the money, after all) is allowed to appeal a criminal acquittal?!
I guess you get tried and tried and tried until they get the result they want, right?
This is but the beginning of the backlash... Customers are going to make companies who do not employ English speakers who are easily understood pay for it in the wallet...
Dell would not have done this unless they had been scared into doing it...
It really pisses me off when I have to open a Novell or Microsoft support incident (which cost $300 each) and they give me someone in India who I can't understand...
"Also another question to the legal wise out there. There is little doubt in my mind Microsoft funding and incentive is pulling the strings behind SCO. Isn't this extremely illegal for them to do based on the ruling of the previous judgements? Obviously they get out of a lot of legal holes by using SCO as a proxy attacker of Linux but it is nonetheless doing this for reasons of destroying a competitor."
That should be IBM's next counter claim in discovery... Get a court order that _ALL_ documents related to their dealings with Microsoft be preserved and provided.
If (and we know they are) Microsoft is backing Scaldera's baseless lawsuit they are probably in violation of the DOJ settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
"If, however, the court orders SCO to show their cards or get out of Dodge, then SCO's done real fast! SUN and Microsoft won't send them any money if they cannot be a "legitimate" source of FUD against Linux."
If the court acts responsibly, they should act to make SCO show that they HAVE a case before wasting the court's time (and taxpayer money) for the next year or two). That is, in effect what it's done by imposing the 30 day deadline for them to show discovery.
I suspect there is a point where Microsoft and Sun won't be able to openly pump the SCO FUD machine. After all, they have investors (and regulators) to answer to as well, and they would have a hard time justifying value for the money.
States that have settled with Microsoft (even the Feds) could say that them directly funding a slander/libel/barratry campaign against their sole viable competitor is a violation of the settlements. It could open a HUGE can of worms for them, and lead to tougher sanctions.
I'd think that states with Linux businesses should right now be heavily lobbied by those businesses to make just that argument...
"SCOX is mostly held by insiders. And they're selling.
/. once posted info that a company controlled by Melinda Gates was swallowing them up when the SCOX price fell...
I hate to be a pedantic bastard, but if the SCO insiders sell their stock, won't that mean that at some point the shareholders won't be insiders anymore?"
Most of the sales are of stock options excercised. If I'm not mistaken, these shares are "new" shares issued, sold to the "insider" at the option price (some have excersized PENNY options) which they then dump at the current price.
I suppose this would create more shares out there which would not be owned by insiders, but they are a pittance compared to the number held by Canopy.
Besides, one wonders WHO is buying these shares as they get dumped... Someone posting on
Not to mention, threatening your OWN customers isn't a very smart thing to do.
No matter WHAT happens, SCO is a doomed company. Even if they win, the cash they get from IBM will be a one time thing, they have so destroyed their reputation they will never be able to do business again.
Even IF their allegations about Linux are proven, they will eventually be FORCED to reveal what is infringing, which will allow Linus, et all to get it out of the kernel. Linux will be damaged, so will Linux business, but the problem will be resolved and no Linux user will need to pay SCO.
Now, we know they have yet to provide _ANY_ evidence that hasn't been quickly made them look stupid. Even IF the doomesday scenario happens, SCO's behavior has made it virtually impossible for them to get the damages they seek (as they've made no effort to mitigate damages as they are required to do under the law), so any court victory will likely be barely enough to pay their lawyers (if that) and the code will be revealed and ripped from Linux.
Any way you cut it, SCO is doomed, and anyone betting on the SCO lottery would be better off buying the Powerball... You are more likely to win that than you are as a SCO investor to see ANY return on any money they get from this lawsuit (it will all go to their lawyers) or from future earnings (there won't be any).
Agree with some of those!
.COMs During the insane years of 1996-2000, tons and tons of people ranging from ordinary people looking to get rich on .com IPO's to businessmen who should have known better, threw away many billions of dollars on companies that never had any plan for making money. This is quite likely the worst disaster of all time for the IT industry, one that we aren't likely to fully recover from until the NEXT recession-recovery cycle...
I'd say these are the biggest tech flops that I can remember (in no particular order) that the article didn't mention:
1. Microchannel (PS/2), IBM's attempt to force a proprietary bus on the market that it could get royalties from flopped miserably, though Microchannel was FAR better than ISA, and had features we didn't get until years later when PCI became the standard (such as jumperless, plug and play configuration)
2. OS/2. Again, like Microchannel, technically far superior to Windows/DOS, but out marketed. These twin disasters of the late 80's/90's nearly did IBM in and taught them a lesson they seem to have learned from.
3. Internet appliances (Cobalt, etc). Just as the article hits on WebTV and other internet computers as being done in by lower priced PC's, internet appliance servers were done in by not being cheaper ultimately than lower priced servers.
4.
5. The DMCA/silly patents/IP law. The cummulative effect of the race to give ownership of every idea to the highest corporate bidder is a disaster in the making. One that could cause the technology industry in the United States to collapse as suddenly and completely as traditional heavy industry did in the 1970's...
" Taxes subsidize regular bulk mail. So your point is incorrect. In addition, no one has provided a way for email senders to pay, to it's kind of silly to ask email senders to pay when there is no mechanism is available."
Simple. Send them a check first. If they cash it, then you are justified in sending your "copy".
There you go, a mechanism for YOU to pay for what you are otherwise stealing!
Circumventing spam filters using YOUR "logic" would seem to justify many things.
Such as breaking and entering. Hacking their network. Stealing the resources of a company. Sure, they have a FIREWALL in place, but if the REALLY didn't want you in their system they wouldn't have one in the first place, right?
Your sleazebag company is definately on my shitlist.
I have spam filters to stop spam.
PERIOD. You have no right, moral or otherwise, to my bandwidth and inbox. Furthermore, your company and product will automatically be blacklisted by myself, and will be slammed within my circle.
I have never once bought anything that someone solicited me by e-mail for, and I never will.
I want my e-mail account to be used only to contact those I want to contact, and those I want to contact me. If you send me solicitations of ANY KIND, without prior consent, you are a spammer, and are no better than Ralsky.
Doing so is futile. So, why would you WANT to send me spam?
Furthermore, my computer and network skills are excellent. VERY excellent. Do you really want to make people like me mad?
"You mean that we might see more than 98% of incumbents re-elected [commoncause.org]?
A 5-1 funding advantage is what does that. Spamming voters can't exactly make it worse."
Don't forget that so-called "campaign finance reform" now makes it illegal for you and me to pool our money to criticize an incumbent 30-90 days before an election in any meaningful way that might be seen or heard by other voters...
That law should have been called the "Incumbency Protection Illegal Constitutional Convention of 2002".
Limiting contributions to candidates is one thing. Implying that *I* am part of the corruption problem if *I* and others choose to excercise free speech to criticize a politician is offensive, insulting, and flat out WRONG.
I'm still stunned the Supreme Court upheld it. Expect more and more laws from Congress abridging the freedom of speech, now that the wedge has been driven.
I'm waiting for the CFR "website blackout" law that will be next. We will have to black out our poltiical commentary, blogs, message boards, etc, Google will have to disable search results that hit critique of a candidate, etc...
If they want to keep us informed... PUT UP A WEBSITE. That way, if I want to go there, I can.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that we, the people, are obligated to listen to ANYONE in our government. The reverse, however is true though.
" Spam is generally defined as being `unsolicited commercial email`. How spam from the political wing of the armed forces can be described as commercial is anyone's guess."
;)
Consider that the government is the largest business in the country. It takes in more money, and spends more money than any other. It is one of, if not the largest advertisers. It tries to sell services. It tries to get you to let it control more of your life every day.
The only difference between the government and a corporation is that the government has guns. LOTS of guns. And the authority to back up it's EULA with deadly force
" I think spammers are going to start a bunch of lil grassroots political parties. They will band together and form the penis party, and sell penis creams, pills, and lord knows what else to "support" the party.
The only real solution is to have terrorists start using spam to fund their operations... only with that boogieman out of the closet will congress do anything about spam"
Don't be so sure that terrorists aren't already into spam... Or at least into profiting off the fradulent "products" that 99% of spam seems to hawk...
Terrorist groups are the new mafia in the world. The underworld tends to fund itself by the illegal. IMHO, ppammers like Ralsky would gladly sell spam services to Al Queida for a fast buck to hawk fake penis pills supplied from some Palestinian placebo factory, that is, if his observed morals are consistent...
I consider spam ITSELF to be a form of terrorism. It has made my e-mail services virtually useless. Spam is now up to 90% of all the e-mail I receive. That is up from 60% only 6 months ago. As far as I'm concerned, rounding them up and holding them in Cuba without trial and without access to lawyers (while blasting inane commercials at them 24/7) is too good for them.
I do as well. I see it this way...
Politicians shouldn't be trying to influence me. I should be influencing THEM. But in the "nanny state" we are becoming, more and more people, unfortunately, have the misguided idea that it's the government's (and hence, the politician's) job to TAKE CARE OF US...
Let them run ads and put up signs at election time, as that's stuff I can CHOOSE to eyeball or listen to. But they don't need to be calling me or spamming me. THAT, to me is a government invasion of my privacy.
Typical of a group of politicians who have been in office, and therefore power, too long...
Write laws that have no prohibitions on THEMSELVES. This was one of the big things the Democrats were doing in the 40 years they ran Congress. And changing things to that Congress had to live under the laws it passed was one of Newt's biggest planks in the "Contract for America".
(Congress used to be exempt from, among other laws: The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Social Security Act, and the OSHA Act.)
Leave them in power 10 years and they act the same way...
I'm beginning to think the best strategy is to always vote against incumbents. No matter what the party of their particular beliefs.
Note too the implications that the new (illegal, but upheld anyway) CFR "Amendment" to the Constitution can prohibit what can be said via e-mail 90 days before an election...
So, is it soon to be illegal for me to say anything negative about Robert K. Byrd 90 days before an election on MY OWN website?
Scary stuff. Don't say I didn't warn you people either. CFR and the misguided Supreme Court just allowed a wedge to be inserted into the first amendment's protection of our right to criticize the government. Sledgehammers are being readied to drive that wedge further...
When Congress exempts ITSELF from a law it expects us peasants to live under, it's safe to say it's a bad law they are passing.
You are absolutely right on this. I admin Linux, Windows, and Novell servers. Windows Server is just as difficult to set up and admin as the other two, that is, to do it RIGHT.
But the GUI makes one think it's easier. Sure, anyone can install Windows Server. And any script kiddie or virus author will take it down within days.
" . . .but only if you keep your knives in a government-approved Knife Safe, otherwise you were "negligent". Even the butter knives.
It's a good thing we don't get ALL the Government we pay for: can you imagine policies like this with COMPETENT Government employees and enforcement ????"
This is why I fear the application of technology, particularly in spying/monitoring, etc..
Now, instead of a lazy, incompetent bureaucrat who can't be bothered to do their job enforcing the thousands upon thousands of regulations and laws, we have machines do it and collect it neatly for the government.
Why do you think cops spend more time setting speed traps than they do helping motorists? Tickets and fines lead to promotions.
The same thing will happen here.
Sun still bought the other Linux "license" at the same time MS did.
And if they had the UNIX rights you say, why else did they buy it? Of all the players, Sun stands to benefit the MOST if Linux/IBM lose this suit.
They'd stand alone as the largest end-to-end Unix solution provider unaffected by the case.
To me, Sun is just as much a part of it as MS.
And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.
Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.
And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...
Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...
All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!
Looks a lot like a BSA stormtrooper threat letter to me... Certify that you are in compliance...
Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.
Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!
If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.
They couldn't even do that if the ruling stands... The RIAA would be proceeding from information improperly obtained, and thus, any attempt to REOBTAIN that evidence by legal means would themselves be tainted.
Just as the police can't conduct an illegal search, have a court throw it out, then use the knowledge gained to get that evidence legally to use in the case.
Basically the court is saying that you can't have subpoena power without a lawsuit. And I don't see how that could be overturned...
" can forsee it... they will continue suing Lindows in every third world country that they can if and when they lose in Finland, Sweden, and NL (what I read is this is only a preliminary injuction, and not a closed case)... Next stop - Micronesia!"
And the only way Lindows can stop this is by suing MS in the United States.
Since MS has already lost their trademark fight here, I think that US courts will take a dim view of what they are doing elsewhere. Yes, what MS does outside the USA technically isn't in their jurisdiction, but MS is a US company. As is Lindows. And MS is bound by the terms of the antitrust settlement.
Lindows is attempting to compete with them on the x86 desktop, where MS has been judged to have a monopoly. Microsoft is attempting to hinder that competition using bogus trademark claims that thanks to their earlier loss, have no standing in the US.
MS lost their attempt to do this in the USA very badly. Indeed, the judge was even musing if they deserved trademark protection for the name "Windows" at ALL.
Lindows could file suit to attack their "Windows" trademark in the US, and offer to drop it only if MS agrees to quit these nusiance suits.
Since both are US companies, I also don't see why Lindows couldn't file an unfair competition suit against Microsoft in the US, along with claims they are violating thier anti-trust settlement.
The UN is worse. They are a bunch of mindless bureaucrats who are a waste of oxygen. They are less trustworthy with regulating the Internet than Michael Jackson is with your kids.
Obviously they wouldn't let the ICANN guy in because this meeting is about REPLACING them. While I think ICANN NEEDS replacing, the UN is ever LESS DEMOCRATIC than ICANN, even LESS accountable, and even more corrupt.
If that code was on a disc he bought, it certainly WAS his property.
Even the draconian DMCA is supposed to allow reverse engineering for interoperability, though that clause has been ignored out of it by fascist pigs like Judge Kaplan of the DeCSS case.
It is a question of private property rights: Do I OWN this when I pay my cash, and take it home, or is the seller still allowed to keep ownership?
I'm also not at all happy with Norweigin law here... What kind of justice system do they have when the government, with it's UNLIMITED financial resources (they print the money, after all) is allowed to appeal a criminal acquittal?!
I guess you get tried and tried and tried until they get the result they want, right?
At least here, once acquitted of charges, those same charges CAN NEVER be brought again...
Only the defendant can appeal if convicted.
This is but the beginning of the backlash... Customers are going to make companies who do not employ English speakers who are easily understood pay for it in the wallet...
Dell would not have done this unless they had been scared into doing it...
It really pisses me off when I have to open a Novell or Microsoft support incident (which cost $300 each) and they give me someone in India who I can't understand...
"Also another question to the legal wise out there. There is little doubt in my mind Microsoft funding and incentive is pulling the strings behind SCO. Isn't this extremely illegal for them to do based on the ruling of the previous judgements? Obviously they get out of a lot of legal holes by using SCO as a proxy attacker of Linux but it is nonetheless doing this for reasons of destroying a competitor."
That should be IBM's next counter claim in discovery... Get a court order that _ALL_ documents related to their dealings with Microsoft be preserved and provided.
If (and we know they are) Microsoft is backing Scaldera's baseless lawsuit they are probably in violation of the DOJ settlement.
Not that Ashcroft cares...