Section 0.
They're charging a fee (other that for the physical act of transferring a copy, or for a warranty)
Section 6. SCO are attemtping to impose further restictions (binary only licenses)
And the catch all...
Section 4. Attempting to distrubute the software outside of the terms of the licence, terminates the license, therefore SCO is in breech for distributing any copy at all now.
Generally stocks having a small float are *more* volatile, not less, because the insiders can't trade without filing forms well in advance, and the few shares on the open market are either strongly in demand or not in demand at all.
While that may be true in general, SCO is a special case.
Consider if there was a well funded third party who saw benefit in SCOX maintaining a high share price, as this lends supports to the SCO argument that "Linux belongs to SCO". It can be proffered by SCO & their patsy analysts alike "see - there must some truth in SCO's case - the market considers us a good buy". A proprietary software company competing with Linux would surely be motivated in this manner.
Such an entity could then buy SCOX shares anytime they dropped below their target threshold. They may well lose several million buying worthless script, but they would make it all back many times over by increased sales through maintaining the FUD.
N.b. That proprietary software co would not be stupid enough to be seen buying the shares directly, espcially if they're already a convicted abuser of their monopoly status. Rather they would get several of their many minions to do their bidding...
'The SCO Group cannot expect to win any case based upon application
interfaces which it's AT&T, USL and Novell predecessors relased in
open standards specifically for the purpose of interoperability.
From 1989, the then SCO activity pushed for the adoption of the iBCS Intel Binary Compatibility Specifications
across *all* i386 Unix vendors
For the benefit of the entire user base, as well as the industry as awhole,
SCO encourages all UNIX System vendors for Intel processors to join
SCO, USL, Intel, ISC and OSF in supporting the iBCS-2 standard for x86
applications.
'
Even SCO admits, no
requries
these definitions to be present in order to be standards compliant.
So did SCO just announce that intend to issue more stock?
Not necessarily. More likely RBC might want to sell down their investment, and SCO doesn't want to be held to the restrictive parts of the deal if RBC sells down too much (defined as less than 5%).
...did they just announce their intent to sell the company?
Just anounce?! Darl has been begging IBM to buy the company from the very beginning of this suit!
In the USA, the greater problem is not software patents themselves, but the ease with which they can be obtained.
A double standard exists between patents on physical commodities and those on software.
With physical commodities, you have to prove originality, and a level of sophistication, that what you're trying to patent is the product of non-obvious thought.
However, with software, you only have to cook up some new jargon words, sufficient to make a really trivial and obvious solution look technically difficult.
Also, in the USTPO, the patent examiners are credited not by the number of patent applications they process, but merely the number of patents they approve. This is corrupt, since there is a strong disincentive against declining trivial and unworthy applications.
The patent portfolio corporations, mostly made up of lawyers, know how to take advantage of the endemic computer illiteracy within the USTPO.
The triviality of software concepts that have been patented is deplorable. It's like a chef being able to patent the concept of breaking an egg and emptying it into a bowl with one hand.
Perhaps software invention being patented, as long
as:
1) The software's concepts are totally non-trivial
2) There is an order of significant complexity, that your everyday programmer could never think of
3) The software represents a solution to a specific commercially sensitive, mission-critical challenge.
For example, trivial things like XOR-ing graphics pixels, linked lists and one-click purchase should never be patented.
However, something like a mind-numbingly-clever whiz-bang algorithm for rapid and accurate fingerprint comparison, for software sold to police departments, an algorithm that took significant investment of effort to
develop, and isn't just based on a single concept, should perhaps be patentable.
Also, given the volatility of software, patents on software algorithms (IF they are deserving, and granted) should only be for short terms, depending on complexity - say 1 year for low complexity, 3 years for moderate complexity, 5 years for extreme complexity.
And, for a company to renew a patent, it would have to prove that it has added significantly to
the original concept.
For example, JPEG or GIF file format or LZW Compression would, if granted patents, only have 1-year terms - and these patents would only apply for the commercial context in which the patents were applied for. To have monopoly in a different commercial context would require a whole new
patent application.
Conclusion
Whether or not software patents become a reality, the devil will be in the details. There would have to be the strictest laws to ensure that patent examiners have no incentive to approve with their productivity measured by the number of completed evaluations, without regard for the percentage or number of approvals.
Credit where it is due: much of the above is a paraphrase of a usenet posted by someone with the tag "Evil Bastard".
Yes it will (almost certainly), but that doesn't mean the end of this case, as their liquidators may decide to continue the case if they think it has merit.
Continuing the case would be particularly beneficial to SCO shareholders as there would be only upside - if they win they win big - and IBM's countersuits are not to be feared as they're already bust!
And I say I want this case fought to a close. A clear win for IBM (and Redhat on their suit) does two good things.
i) it aids the case for getting Darl & co to do a "perp walk" and
ii) it further legitimizes the GPL. While many feel the GPL is very robust already, they are other who disagree and some settled case law on topic always assists.
I have longed for the day when my car has this sort of recording ability. Preferably 4 cameras - one for each corner, so that any incident is caught.
And until it became popular, I would have the best of both worlds. If it worked for me, I'd show the evidence. And if I was in the wrong "what camera, Officer?"...
And when that restriction annoyed me I just hit 'Print Screen' and pasted it into a new message.
There is NO point in this type of restriction.
I can forsee the day when we will all be running a monitoring program which detects when a time/forwarding/other stupidly restricted deocument is being displayed and automatically snaps the image to a proof database.
Even if palladium etc stops such an app running on the pc, a digital cam (or better, analog!) will still suffice.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the SCO tax is per CPU, while you only need to buy one Novell pack to protect your whole enterprise.
Well lets see now...
Section 0. They're charging a fee (other that for the physical act of transferring a copy, or for a warranty)
Section 6. SCO are attemtping to impose further restictions (binary only licenses)
And the catch all... Section 4. Attempting to distrubute the software outside of the terms of the licence, terminates the license, therefore SCO is in breech for distributing any copy at all now.
Any others, anyone?
While that may be true in general, SCO is a special case.
Consider if there was a well funded third party who saw benefit in SCOX maintaining a high share price, as this lends supports to the SCO argument that "Linux belongs to SCO". It can be proffered by SCO & their patsy analysts alike "see - there must some truth in SCO's case - the market considers us a good buy". A proprietary software company competing with Linux would surely be motivated in this manner.
Such an entity could then buy SCOX shares anytime they dropped below their target threshold. They may well lose several million buying worthless script, but they would make it all back many times over by increased sales through maintaining the FUD.
N.b. That proprietary software co would not be stupid enough to be seen buying the shares directly, espcially if they're already a convicted abuser of their monopoly status. Rather they would get several of their many minions to do their bidding...
'The SCO Group cannot expect to win any case based upon application interfaces which it's AT&T, USL and Novell predecessors relased in open standards specifically for the purpose of interoperability.
signal.h, errorno.h,and ioctl are all parts of many released standards including The Open Group and IEEE POSIX Base Specifications and the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 151-2.
Note that The SCO Group does not own the copyrights on any of those standards and it does not own clear title to the copyrights on most of the AT&T Unix base.
From 1989, the then SCO activity pushed for the adoption of the iBCS Intel Binary Compatibility Specifications across *all* i386 Unix vendors
'Even SCO admits, no requries these definitions to be present in order to be standards compliant.
Not necessarily. More likely RBC might want to sell down their investment, and SCO doesn't want to be held to the restrictive parts of the deal if RBC sells down too much (defined as less than 5%).
Just anounce?! Darl has been begging IBM to buy the company from the very beginning of this suit!
Just about the best asset one can have - a good name. A name that attracts a loyal following and user advocates.
Just like Red Hat used to have until their 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' comment. I dropped Redhat for Mandrake on the back of that.
I still support Redhat in their anti-sco endevours, and I sure hope that this annoucement means the end of them dissing Linux on the desktop...
Think how few fundamental technologies e.g. light bulbs
Buzzzz. Wrong example. Light bulbs are a case study in what can go wrong with patents. See the Wikipaedia entry on the history of the light bulb to witness greed, fraud and corruption at play!
In the USA, the greater problem is not software patents themselves, but the ease with which they can be obtained.
A double standard exists between patents on physical commodities and those on software.
With physical commodities, you have to prove originality, and a level of sophistication, that what you're trying to patent is the product of non-obvious thought.
However, with software, you only have to cook up some new jargon words, sufficient to make a really trivial and obvious solution look technically difficult.
Also, in the USTPO, the patent examiners are credited not by the number of patent applications they process, but merely the number of patents they approve. This is corrupt, since there is a strong disincentive against declining trivial and unworthy applications.
The patent portfolio corporations, mostly made up of lawyers, know how to take advantage of the endemic computer illiteracy within the USTPO.
The triviality of software concepts that have been patented is deplorable. It's like a chef being able to patent the concept of breaking an egg and emptying it into a bowl with one hand.
Perhaps software invention being patented, as long as:
1) The software's concepts are totally non-trivial
2) There is an order of significant complexity, that your everyday programmer could never think of
3) The software represents a solution to a specific commercially sensitive, mission-critical challenge.
For example, trivial things like XOR-ing graphics pixels, linked lists and one-click purchase should never be patented.
However, something like a mind-numbingly-clever whiz-bang algorithm for rapid and accurate fingerprint comparison, for software sold to police departments, an algorithm that took significant investment of effort to develop, and isn't just based on a single concept, should perhaps be patentable.
Also, given the volatility of software, patents on software algorithms (IF they are deserving, and granted) should only be for short terms, depending on complexity - say 1 year for low complexity, 3 years for moderate complexity, 5 years for extreme complexity.
And, for a company to renew a patent, it would have to prove that it has added significantly to the original concept.
For example, JPEG or GIF file format or LZW Compression would, if granted patents, only have 1-year terms - and these patents would only apply for the commercial context in which the patents were applied for. To have monopoly in a different commercial context would require a whole new patent application.
Conclusion
Whether or not software patents become a reality, the devil will be in the details. There would have to be the strictest laws to ensure that patent examiners have no incentive to approve with their productivity measured by the number of completed evaluations, without regard for the percentage or number of approvals.
Credit where it is due: much of the above is a paraphrase of a usenet posted by someone with the tag "Evil Bastard".
SCO will go belly up before that...
Yes it will (almost certainly), but that doesn't mean the end of this case, as their liquidators may decide to continue the case if they think it has merit.
Continuing the case would be particularly beneficial to SCO shareholders as there would be only upside - if they win they win big - and IBM's countersuits are not to be feared as they're already bust!
And I say I want this case fought to a close. A clear win for IBM (and Redhat on their suit) does two good things.
i) it aids the case for getting Darl & co to do a "perp walk" and
ii) it further legitimizes the GPL. While many feel the GPL is very robust already, they are other who disagree and some settled case law on topic always assists.
"Linux" ~= 500 results ".net" ~= 32000 results A pretty clear case of censorship, I would think.
The parent purported to have a link to SCO's stock price on Yahoo's finance pages.
It did have a link to the stock ticker SCO (being Scor Group). Here's the link to the SCO/Caldera that's actually being discussed (stock ticker SCOX).
And until it became popular, I would have the best of both worlds. If it worked for me, I'd show the evidence. And if I was in the wrong "what camera, Officer?"...
I can forsee the day when we will all be running a monitoring program which detects when a time/forwarding/other stupidly restricted deocument is being displayed and automatically snaps the image to a proof database.
Even if palladium etc stops such an app running on the pc, a digital cam (or better, analog!) will still suffice.