Actually, what Darl really said was "We don't get the free-lunch thing..."
Darl in psychotherapy:
Shrink: So your mom always made you pay for lunch?
Darl: Of course, doesn't everyone's?
Shrink: Uh huh, and how did you pay for it?
Darl: Sued the neighbors. It was more profitable than mowing their lawns.
Shrink: I see. You're in business, aren't you, Darl?
Darl: Well, yeah, I guess. I mean, it kind of depends on how you define "business". And "in".
Shrink: Ok, well, as a vendor, don't you ever buy lunch for prospective clients?
Darl: Sure, all the time. Sometimes we even buy them drugs and prostitutes.
Shrink: Well, that was more than I needed to know. But anyway, what happens when they decide to purchase another vendor's products?
Darl: It depends. Usually we blackmail them. If it's only lunch though, we sue. And if they haven't, and won't, have anything to do with us we blackmail by threatening to sue...
Looks to me like their are patent numbers associated with those patents.
How would IBM have patent numbers if they weren't filed with the USPTO? What would they do, just make the numbers up? Yeah, that wouldn't be checked in court. IBM is not that stupid, not to mention that anyone can check those patents online and verify it for themselves.
You may be right, but I doubt it, unless you mean the set of code forming the intersection of BSD's and ATT's code bases.
I can't believe that the UC Board of Regents would make *all* of their code to that point public domain. Also, if the rumors regarding the settlement are true, ATT was required to insert proper UC copyright notices in something like 70 routines.
Since the settlement is closed, we can't really verify your assertion unless you are someone who was privy to the terms or can post a reference where it can be verified.
SCO can't collect for back damages, even if they are right on all points, because they didn't register their copyrights until they started suing everyone.
Remember that whenever you hear them claiming that mitigation doesn't take care of past infringements. They can't demand financial damages for past infringements since their copyrights weren't registered. All they can request is mitigation, and financial damages for the period of time after their copyrights were registered.
I know one shouldn't feed the trolls, but this one is just so wrong:
There are actual definitions of what constitutes an actual infringement of copyright. 200 lines of code, unless in a single block, don't apply.
Uh... what? That's completely untrue. Infringement is infringement. There's no minimum number of lines required.
In the case where there is no other efficient way to implement an algorithm, "fair use" may dictate that a small taking - and 200 lines would be a small taking - is not infringement.
Of course, this argument grants the assumption that SCO's copyright claims would hold up in court. In the ATT/BSD case, the judge concluded that ATT would probably NOT be able to hold up its copyright claims, and the malloc code is part of that code base.
If you are referring to the XFS code, SCO doesn't have any copyrights on that, just contractual claims that appear to be contradicted by ATT's letters granting System V licensees ownership of any code they write for System V unless actual System V code portions are included in said code.
So, I guess you haven't actually read the contracts, or know much about copyright law. Were I to take your rhetorical lead, I suspect that I would be required to call you a "fucking moron" at this point. However, "ignorant" seems to describe your position much better, at least in my opinion.
It actually hasn't been declared public domain, yet, but if taken to court, it probably would be. The code is part of the same code base that the judge in the BSD case said ATT probably wouldn't be able to protect. It's also been include as an example in a number of basic C programming manuals, including Kerighan & Ritchie.
So while it's not *literally* public domain, it's unlikely that the code samples provided by SCO so far would survive a public domain challenge.
In any event, the code was definitely released as part of Caldera's "ancient Unix" distribution under a "BSD-like" license, which means it could be used in open source or proprietary projects as long as the copyrights were maintained.
In the unlikely case that a public domain challenge did not hold up, SGI *might* be slightly vulnerable on this point, but it is also the kind of trivial mistake that is supposed to be capable of mitigation by re-inserting the copyrights. The courts probably wouldn't look to kindly on SCO for denying SGI that privilege.
Yes. One might be tempted to call it "excessive" due diligence, but that will not hurt when it finally goes to trial, if ever.
Which brings up the question, does SGI even *have* enough cash on hand to make them worth suing? Given SGI's reliance on government contracts, would any federal agencies be willing to file an amicus brief on SGI's behalf, supporting SGI's contentions on the basis of its mitigatory actions and the government's reliance on some SGI systems?
Perhaps SGI's "excessive" mitigatory actions are a necessary prelude to garnering support for their case from other quarters.
Frankly, I can't understand why SCO would pursue this into court at this point in time. One can argue that a taking on a cash-poor defendant could give SCO an easy win to set precedent for the IBM suit, but for that reasoning to work, SCO should have sued SGI first. There's no chance now that a suit brought against SGI could be decided before the IBM case.
Putting SGI out of business doesn't do SCO any good. SCO won't be able to further develop SGI's business and technology even if they were able to claim the assets. Nor does it do SGI's customers any good to have SGI's products made obsolete - even more quickly than is already occurring - by a SCO management more interested in litigation than technological development.
The only possibility I can see for SCO getting anything out of this is if they hope to force SGI into a settlement. It may be that SCO is just looking for a quick 10 or 20 million to finance the IBM suit, and would settle with SGI for that little. It would also have the added benefit of scoring another profitable quarter for Darl, if settled quickly enough. SCO may find, however, that even SGI's competitors would be willing to pick up the legal tab before letting SCO win a penny out of this.
And according to SGI, it's questionable whether any of the code even got compiled. It seems like it was old code left in the source, but not even called upon at compilation.
Holy Shit! The subject is SCO, but we've got more than ten posts here arguing over whether lemmings have suicidal impulses?
It doesn't matter! The metaphor works either way.
Suppose the lemmings are suicidal. Then the metaphor conforms to standard expectations, and there's nothing to really elaborate on.
Suppose the lemmings that are out front are the leaders, the visionaries of the lemmings. As leaders and visionaries occasionally do, sometimes they make mistakes. And when they do make a mistake, when they, let's say, accidentally come to close to the edge, suddenly there's a fucking mob behind them ready to push them over the cliff. Which, um, really doesn't sound all that different from human behavior, haina?
So you see, my point, and I do have one, is that the metaphor works either way. Whether the original lemmings got slandered by Disney or not.
Actually, I've already got a seat reserved. I'm certainly not an existing customer, although I did buy Caldera's Open Linux in 1998. And my opinion on SCO is certainly no secret: check out this journal entry for further elucidation.
Or you could check out the first post in this thread, which some karma-troll copied from one of my previous posts.
Actually, I think the real float is probably much lower. That number just accounts for Canopy's holdings. Then there's John Whats-his-Name 7%, Sun 1.5%, Trolltech holds 1.5%, ICP 5%, probably a number of other Canopy companies with 1-2% stakes, stocks owned by Canopy group members like Ralph Yarro, etc.
If the real float on this is as little as 4 million, I wouldn't be surprised. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it was as little as 3 million.
Well, Darl didn't say it, Blake did. I know, it's a fine line, given that it's kind of hard to tell the siamese triplets (Darl, Chris, Blake) apart.
The copyright claim, while flat out untrue, is also contradicted by SCO's own previous statements. Even more interesting to my mind is the statement: "If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative..."
Has Blake even *read* the GPL?
These guys really aren't making any sense at all anymore. It used to seem like they were at least making an effort, unsuccessfully, but trying. I think they must have added LSD to their crack mix.
Due to post-production problems, they have to re-shoot some parts. Plus a bunch of looping still needs to be done, then the re-shot scenes have to be digitally manipulated to insert new CGI, etc., etc.
Anyway, the upshot is that the release date has been postponed until November, 2005.
I'm kind of surprised you hadn't heard about it already. I saw it in the NY Times at least a week or two ago.
"If you're gambling that your web page is interesting to any of those people but that it will never be interesting to more than 0.02% of them, you're not playing with very good odds."
Well, PJ's pretty cool, so she'll probably read it in the spirit in which it was intended. But the disconnect between author and characterization was pretty comical.
Slashdot Mirror
Darl in psychotherapy:
Especially since the universe is a Cellular Automata running on a Linux box.
Yeah, SCO's got God on the run, alright...
Looks to me like their are patent numbers associated with those patents.
How would IBM have patent numbers if they weren't filed with the USPTO? What would they do, just make the numbers up? Yeah, that wouldn't be checked in court. IBM is not that stupid, not to mention that anyone can check those patents online and verify it for themselves.
Just more Bull Shit from Blake Stowell.
You may be right, but I doubt it, unless you mean the set of code forming the intersection of BSD's and ATT's code bases.
I can't believe that the UC Board of Regents would make *all* of their code to that point public domain. Also, if the rumors regarding the settlement are true, ATT was required to insert proper UC copyright notices in something like 70 routines.
Since the settlement is closed, we can't really verify your assertion unless you are someone who was privy to the terms or can post a reference where it can be verified.
SCO can't collect for back damages, even if they are right on all points, because they didn't register their copyrights until they started suing everyone.
Remember that whenever you hear them claiming that mitigation doesn't take care of past infringements. They can't demand financial damages for past infringements since their copyrights weren't registered. All they can request is mitigation, and financial damages for the period of time after their copyrights were registered.
In the case where there is no other efficient way to implement an algorithm, "fair use" may dictate that a small taking - and 200 lines would be a small taking - is not infringement.
Of course, this argument grants the assumption that SCO's copyright claims would hold up in court. In the ATT/BSD case, the judge concluded that ATT would probably NOT be able to hold up its copyright claims, and the malloc code is part of that code base.
If you are referring to the XFS code, SCO doesn't have any copyrights on that, just contractual claims that appear to be contradicted by ATT's letters granting System V licensees ownership of any code they write for System V unless actual System V code portions are included in said code.
So, I guess you haven't actually read the contracts, or know much about copyright law. Were I to take your rhetorical lead, I suspect that I would be required to call you a "fucking moron" at this point. However, "ignorant" seems to describe your position much better, at least in my opinion.
It actually hasn't been declared public domain, yet, but if taken to court, it probably would be. The code is part of the same code base that the judge in the BSD case said ATT probably wouldn't be able to protect. It's also been include as an example in a number of basic C programming manuals, including Kerighan & Ritchie.
So while it's not *literally* public domain, it's unlikely that the code samples provided by SCO so far would survive a public domain challenge.
In any event, the code was definitely released as part of Caldera's "ancient Unix" distribution under a "BSD-like" license, which means it could be used in open source or proprietary projects as long as the copyrights were maintained.
In the unlikely case that a public domain challenge did not hold up, SGI *might* be slightly vulnerable on this point, but it is also the kind of trivial mistake that is supposed to be capable of mitigation by re-inserting the copyrights. The courts probably wouldn't look to kindly on SCO for denying SGI that privilege.
Not that SCO has much chance of winning anyway.
My rough guess on the odds would be about zero to none.
Yes. One might be tempted to call it "excessive" due diligence, but that will not hurt when it finally goes to trial, if ever.
Which brings up the question, does SGI even *have* enough cash on hand to make them worth suing? Given SGI's reliance on government contracts, would any federal agencies be willing to file an amicus brief on SGI's behalf, supporting SGI's contentions on the basis of its mitigatory actions and the government's reliance on some SGI systems?
Perhaps SGI's "excessive" mitigatory actions are a necessary prelude to garnering support for their case from other quarters.
Frankly, I can't understand why SCO would pursue this into court at this point in time. One can argue that a taking on a cash-poor defendant could give SCO an easy win to set precedent for the IBM suit, but for that reasoning to work, SCO should have sued SGI first. There's no chance now that a suit brought against SGI could be decided before the IBM case.
Putting SGI out of business doesn't do SCO any good. SCO won't be able to further develop SGI's business and technology even if they were able to claim the assets. Nor does it do SGI's customers any good to have SGI's products made obsolete - even more quickly than is already occurring - by a SCO management more interested in litigation than technological development.
The only possibility I can see for SCO getting anything out of this is if they hope to force SGI into a settlement. It may be that SCO is just looking for a quick 10 or 20 million to finance the IBM suit, and would settle with SGI for that little. It would also have the added benefit of scoring another profitable quarter for Darl, if settled quickly enough. SCO may find, however, that even SGI's competitors would be willing to pick up the legal tab before letting SCO win a penny out of this.
And according to SGI, it's questionable whether any of the code even got compiled. It seems like it was old code left in the source, but not even called upon at compilation.
"Individuals are smart. Groups of people are stupid."
That's it. I'm never going to a conference again.
Holy Shit! The subject is SCO, but we've got more than ten posts here arguing over whether lemmings have suicidal impulses?
It doesn't matter! The metaphor works either way.
Suppose the lemmings are suicidal. Then the metaphor conforms to standard expectations, and there's nothing to really elaborate on.
Suppose the lemmings that are out front are the leaders, the visionaries of the lemmings. As leaders and visionaries occasionally do, sometimes they make mistakes. And when they do make a mistake, when they, let's say, accidentally come to close to the edge, suddenly there's a fucking mob behind them ready to push them over the cliff. Which, um, really doesn't sound all that different from human behavior, haina?
So you see, my point, and I do have one, is that the metaphor works either way. Whether the original lemmings got slandered by Disney or not.
Actually, I've already got a seat reserved. I'm certainly not an existing customer, although I did buy Caldera's Open Linux in 1998. And my opinion on SCO is certainly no secret: check out this journal entry for further elucidation.
Or you could check out the first post in this thread, which some karma-troll copied from one of my previous posts.
Hey, that's mine!!!
Fucking karma-troll.
It's here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78794&cid=698
You would think people would know better than to plagiarise from the same bulletin board they're posting to. Moron.
7.5 million float...
Actually, I think the real float is probably much lower. That number just accounts for Canopy's holdings. Then there's John Whats-his-Name 7%, Sun 1.5%, Trolltech holds 1.5%, ICP 5%, probably a number of other Canopy companies with 1-2% stakes, stocks owned by Canopy group members like Ralph Yarro, etc.
If the real float on this is as little as 4 million, I wouldn't be surprised. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it was as little as 3 million.
Insider Trades. 12 Insider Sales, no Insider Purchases.
Actually, I think it would be... Canopy?
Just a thought, mind you. I could be wrong.
Well, Darl didn't say it, Blake did. I know, it's a fine line, given that it's kind of hard to tell the siamese triplets (Darl, Chris, Blake) apart.
The copyright claim, while flat out untrue, is also contradicted by SCO's own previous statements. Even more interesting to my mind is the statement: "If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative..."
Has Blake even *read* the GPL?
These guys really aren't making any sense at all anymore. It used to seem like they were at least making an effort, unsuccessfully, but trying. I think they must have added LSD to their crack mix.
No, you were right the first time.
Due to post-production problems, they have to re-shoot some parts. Plus a bunch of looping still needs to be done, then the re-shot scenes have to be digitally manipulated to insert new CGI, etc., etc.
Anyway, the upshot is that the release date has been postponed until November, 2005.
I'm kind of surprised you hadn't heard about it already. I saw it in the NY Times at least a week or two ago.
"If you're gambling that your web page is interesting to any of those people but that it will never be interesting to more than 0.02% of them, you're not playing with very good odds."
Or you have really low self-esteem.
Finally, someone uses the word "loose" correctly!
Well, PJ's pretty cool, so she'll probably read it in the spirit in which it was intended. But the disconnect between author and characterization was pretty comical.
Paragraph breaks please.
It's been floating around for a while, and The Inq has a companion research link where you can verify all the assertions in the Groklaw letter.
'The headline should be "groklaw Whips Out Penis and Proceeds to Beat Darl McBride With It."'
I'm wondering how the author of piece, Pamela Jones, will take that.