Regular coffee is served at 140-150 degrees farenheit. Mickey D's was serving it at 180-190, which is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in 2-10 seconds.
Like the others, I find your McDonalds metaphor inappropriate. There are real incidents of frivolous lawsuits, but that case is not one of them. Here is a link to details on the case if you would like further elucidation:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Basically, the woman had 3rd degree burns, had to go to the hospital, where they decided skin grafts were necessary, and the woman asked Mickey D's for $20,000 to take care of the medical costs. They refused. It went to court, where discovery revealed that McD had previously known about the safety implications regarding the temperature at which they "held" their coffee, but disregarded them.
MS can't buy more 5% of the company without reporting it to the SEC. Five percent of 16 million is 800,000. Therefore, MS can't have millions of SCO shares or we would already know it.
Not true. I have a friend, tall (5'11", 36" legs), blonde, beautiful, mostly former model (she still models occassionally), who is in marketing, and while she was consulting with a tech firm she met Linus once.
She knew who Linus was and couldn't wait to gush about meeting him afterwards. And she is definitely NOT a nerd.
OTOH, I suppose I'm pretty much a nerd and maybe she just wanted geek cred. Hmmm.
I posted this at Groklaw, and I'm reposting it here since it seems pretty relevant to the current thread:
I ran some traceroutes to see where the problem is, and the results are quite interesting.
First, let's start with www.canopy.com. I am listing the traceroute output from step 12, since that's just two steps before where things get revealing:
Tracing route to www.canopy.com [216.250.142.120] over a maximum of 30 hops:.... 12 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms 66.62.3.56 13 74 ms 77 ms 74 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45] 14 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.3] 15 77 ms 77 ms 77 ms vi-001.brdr01.den05.viawest.net [66.62.160.22] 16 75 ms 77 ms 76 ms gige-01-m00-00.crrt02.den05.viawest.net [64.78.230.210] 17 87 ms 87 ms 89 ms pos-03-01.crrt01.slc03.viawest.net [64.78.227.10] 18 89 ms 89 ms 89 ms c7pub-216-250-136-70.center7.com [216.250.136.70] 19 91 ms 88 ms 87 ms c7pub-216-250-142-126.center7.com [216.250.142.126] 20 88 ms 89 ms 90 ms c7pub-216-250-142-120.center7.com [216.250.142.120]
Trace complete.
Now, let's traceroute www.caldera.com
Tracing route to www.caldera.com [216.250.140.125] over a maximum of 30 hops:.... 12 74 ms 77 ms 77 ms dal1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.6.193] 13 76 ms 77 ms 74 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45] 14 77 ms 74 ms 74 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.3] 15 * * * Request timed out.
And finally, www.sco.com:
Tracing route to www.sco.com [216.250.140.112] over a maximum of 30 hops:.... 12 76 ms 77 ms 76 ms dal1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.6.193] 13 75 ms 77 ms 76 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45] 14 77 ms 76 ms 75 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.67] 15 * * * Request timed out.
Canopy, Caldera, and SCO, all have addresses that are within the same class C addressing range, respectively: 216.250.140.120, 216.250.140.125, 216.250.140.112. While this makes it very possible that all three sites are served by the same machine, we can't prove that from this information. It is however, likely that they are served from the same router.
The next thing to note is that the route to SCO and Caldera both fail at the 14th step in the tracert. The last router that responds for each of them, at the 13th step, is den1-edge-01.tamerica.net (albeit from different ports). Canopy also passes through den1-edge-01.tamerica.net at the 13th step, but continues on to a router at viawest.com. From there, it passes through 2 more routers at ViaWest, and 3 routers at Center7.
ViaWest and Center7 are both Canopy companies.
On initial analysis, for any other company, a network manager/sys admin/networking consultant (such as me) would simply assume that SCO/Caldera was having a problem with its ISP. The weird thing, though, is the presence of Canopy's IP address right *between* SCO's and Caldera's addresses.
Assume that all 3 segments are served by the same router (no, we can't prove it from this data, but it's extremely likely). Canopy, in that case, should be experiencing problems too if the site were under a DOS attack.
In fact, anyone planning a DDOS attack would find it easier to just take out the whole address range, thereby including all 3 sites, rather than focus on just the SCO/Caldera sites -- and for technical reasons alone. Never mind that they would *want* to target Canopy as well.
Given all this, it is a pretty safe bet that SCO/Caldera has taken its websites down itself.
Why? To protect themselves from a DDOS attack? No. Any decent firewall could take care of that for them. That's why I suspected that it was not DoS attack: they've simply been down too long.
I don't know *why* they're still down. I wonder if they're about to collapse.
Good Lord, was I the only Doom player who mapped the space bar over the forward arrow key? No more hitting space, just run over it. Then I mapped the shoot key to the space bar. Just bang on that big ass space bar to frag demons, etc.
I still don't get why all games, or at least shooters, use the control key for shooting. I mean, shooting is the whole point of a shooter. And it may as well be the biggest key in front of you.
I don't even have a CRT TV. No TV at all. No CRT. Just the DVD player in my computer and the flat panel monitor.
Television is just too depressing. The concept that you have to schedule a certain amount of time each week, at a specific time, to watch something generated for the purpose of catching your eyeball and exposing it to advertising is just, well, depressing.
Besides, I think there's something about the refresh rate that dulls the brain.
Shooting yourself in the foot with operating systems (from the above referenced link):
Unix: You shoot yourself in the foot.
DOS: You keep running up against the one-bullet barrier.
MS-Windows: The gun blows up in your hand.
Windows NT: The gun is so huge and unwieldy that you have to keep swapping
it from one hand to the other.
OS/2: The gun and the bullet aren't speaking to each other any more.
Mac Finder: It's easy to shoot yourself in the foot -- just point
and shoot.
New Addition
SCO: Insert bullet.
Proceed (Y/N)? Y
Step on Land Mine (Y/N)? Y
Pull Trigger (Y/N)? Y
Cannot pull trigger.
You lost your hands when you stepped on the land mine.
Your feet, legs, genitals, and torso are lost too.
(Abort, Retry, Fail?) R
System Halted
I think that wording is problematic for SCO's case. "Treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT" implies that derivative works in fact do NOT become ATT / SCO's property. If the contract stated that the derivative work was deeded back to ATT, then there would be no need for a separate clause to specify how it should be treated.
In IBM's case, that clause was of course superceded by the side-letter agreement. But even for other vendors, SCO would simply have contract disputes with them for not treating derivative works with the same level of confidentiality as the System V source. They are in no way entitled to claim ownership of the code and license it to the Linux end users.
(Obligatory I'm Not A Lawyer, I Just Play One On Slashdot Disclaimer)
"Don't they have to actually WAIT for the court decision vs. IBM to come through before suing the users?"
No. Their Linux "intellectual property" license and copyright infringement claims have little or nothing to do with the IBM case.
If someone were to challenge them and meet them in court, SCO's claims would mean that SCO has to prove it has "intellectual property" or copyrighted code in the kernel, from anyone or anywhere, not just IBM.
Of course, SCO may need to provide the same proof to win the Red Hat case, but that doesn't mean they can't pursue litigation with other Linux users in the meantime.
"SCO's reasons for why the GPL is invalid is actually what makes GPL legally strong"
Exactly. I think this is just a floater for Boies, etc., to see how well it will fly. My bet is that the common reaction of "That's insane" will lead them to look for another strategy. Remember, they demanded a trial-by-jury. If they can test drive legal theories in the press, and gauge reaction, then that just works to their advantage.
Read IBM's counter-suit please. They did file for temporary injunction, as well as declatory injunction and permanent injunction: "...in particular from i) misreprenting SCO's rights and IBM's rights to UNIX technology, such that SCO can, will, or has in fact, revoked IBM's right to use UNIX..."
Just read your analysis, and I want to say, "Really well-done".
However, I disagree that the Sequent/ATT agreements give "ownership" of Sequent's derivative work to ATT. It seems that Sequent was simply required to treat the derivative work "as if" it were part of the original System V source.
Since ownership was not given to ATT, when the code moved to IBM it would come under IBM's contracts rather than Sequent's.
I'm not a lawyer. I think this is a debatable point, though, and may need a more sophisticated defense than the code that originated at IBM.
Sequent's licenses are available at SCO's web site as Exhibits G & F.
However, they are identical to the first two IBM licenses, Exhibits A & B at SCO's website, so if you've already seen those, then you've pretty much seen the Sequent licenses.
Sequent's agreement with ATT does not give the derivative works to ATT; it merely requires that Sequent treat the derivative works as it would the System V Source code. (Section 2.01, Exhibit F, on SCO's web site.)
The question is whether that requirement to keep the code confidential, etc., is perpetual once implemented, or whether the requirement would become moot under IBM's contracts once they took over Sequent. Since ownership of the code wasn't "deeded" back to ATT, I'm guessing that Sequent's obligations under their old ATT contracts will be superceded by IBM's.
But that is really going to be up to the judge. I don't think any of us can know for sure how that one will go, lawyer or not. But I'm not a lawyer, and it would be really nice to see the opinion of a lawyer who has also read all the documents involved.
Also, keep in mind that their may be other documents we don't know about. Who would have guessed that Novell retained control over SCO's enforcement of the ATT contracts until that little tidbit came out in IBM's counter-claim?
That is a really good question. Tom Carey, an IP lawyer, said in an interview with Mozillaquest.com (I know, I know) that he wasn't sure that IBM's licensing terms would apply to the Sequent code.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've looked through the contracts pretty extensively, and I can't see any wording in the contracts that would apply to "IBM and all its subsidiaries". If there were such language, then I'd guess the Sequent code would now fall under the IBM contracts.
Without that language, the case is a little murkier. Since IBM made Sequent a division of IBM, rather than retaining its corporate identity (as they did with Lotus), I'm guessing that Sequent should be considered a part of IBM now for the purposes of the licensing. The case might be different if the code was supposed to be "deeded" back to ATT, but it's not clear that that is the case.
If it comes up, and it sure looks like it will, then it's something the judge will probably have to decide. There doesn't seem to be any clear wording in any of the contracts to deal with case of IBM taking over another Unix licensee.
Slashdot Mirror
Regular coffee is served at 140-150 degrees farenheit. Mickey D's was serving it at 180-190, which is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in 2-10 seconds.
Like the others, I find your McDonalds metaphor inappropriate. There are real incidents of frivolous lawsuits, but that case is not one of them. Here is a link to details on the case if you would like further elucidation:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Basically, the woman had 3rd degree burns, had to go to the hospital, where they decided skin grafts were necessary, and the woman asked Mickey D's for $20,000 to take care of the medical costs. They refused. It went to court, where discovery revealed that McD had previously known about the safety implications regarding the temperature at which they "held" their coffee, but disregarded them.
Extra bonus points and consulting fees later if it's undocumented.
MS can't buy more 5% of the company without reporting it to the SEC. Five percent of 16 million is 800,000. Therefore, MS can't have millions of SCO shares or we would already know it.
Not true. I have a friend, tall (5'11", 36" legs), blonde, beautiful, mostly former model (she still models occassionally), who is in marketing, and while she was consulting with a tech firm she met Linus once.
She knew who Linus was and couldn't wait to gush about meeting him afterwards. And she is definitely NOT a nerd.
OTOH, I suppose I'm pretty much a nerd and maybe she just wanted geek cred. Hmmm.
Yep. And that extra 3 million shares is probably the same 3 million it printed up to "purchase" Vultus from Canopy.
SCO dilutes its shares by more than 20% and the price goes up. (Poster shakes head sadly at the depth of human folly.)
SCO's upstream providers are Center7 and ViaWest, both Canopy companies.
It's unlikely that they would cut off SCO's access on the basis of a letter asserting DMCA violation. They'd take it to court instead.
I posted this at Groklaw, and I'm reposting it here since it seems pretty relevant to the current thread:
I ran some traceroutes to see where the problem is, and the results are quite interesting.
First, let's start with www.canopy.com. I am listing the traceroute output from step 12, since that's just two steps before where things get revealing:
Tracing route to www.canopy.com [216.250.142.120] over a maximum of 30 hops:
12 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms 66.62.3.56
13 74 ms 77 ms 74 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45]
14 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.3]
15 77 ms 77 ms 77 ms vi-001.brdr01.den05.viawest.net [66.62.160.22]
16 75 ms 77 ms 76 ms gige-01-m00-00.crrt02.den05.viawest.net [64.78.230.210]
17 87 ms 87 ms 89 ms pos-03-01.crrt01.slc03.viawest.net [64.78.227.10]
18 89 ms 89 ms 89 ms c7pub-216-250-136-70.center7.com [216.250.136.70]
19 91 ms 88 ms 87 ms c7pub-216-250-142-126.center7.com [216.250.142.126]
20 88 ms 89 ms 90 ms c7pub-216-250-142-120.center7.com [216.250.142.120]
Trace complete.
Now, let's traceroute www.caldera.com
Tracing route to www.caldera.com [216.250.140.125] over a maximum of 30 hops:
12 74 ms 77 ms 77 ms dal1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.6.193]
13 76 ms 77 ms 74 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45]
14 77 ms 74 ms 74 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.3]
15 * * * Request timed out.
And finally, www.sco.com:
Tracing route to www.sco.com [216.250.140.112] over a maximum of 30 hops:
12 76 ms 77 ms 76 ms dal1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.6.193]
13 75 ms 77 ms 76 ms den1-core-01.tamerica.net [66.62.3.45]
14 77 ms 76 ms 75 ms den1-edge-01.tamerica.net [66.62.4.67]
15 * * * Request timed out.
Canopy, Caldera, and SCO, all have addresses that are within the same class C addressing range, respectively: 216.250.140.120, 216.250.140.125, 216.250.140.112. While this makes it very possible that all three sites are served by the same machine, we can't prove that from this information. It is however, likely that they are served from the same router.
The next thing to note is that the route to SCO and Caldera both fail at the 14th step in the tracert. The last router that responds for each of them, at the 13th step, is den1-edge-01.tamerica.net (albeit from different ports). Canopy also passes through den1-edge-01.tamerica.net at the 13th step, but continues on to a router at viawest.com. From there, it passes through 2 more routers at ViaWest, and 3 routers at Center7.
ViaWest and Center7 are both Canopy companies.
On initial analysis, for any other company, a network manager/sys admin/networking consultant (such as me) would simply assume that SCO/Caldera was having a problem with its ISP. The weird thing, though, is the presence of Canopy's IP address right *between* SCO's and Caldera's addresses.
Assume that all 3 segments are served by the same router (no, we can't prove it from this data, but it's extremely likely). Canopy, in that case, should be experiencing problems too if the site were under a DOS attack.
In fact, anyone planning a DDOS attack would find it easier to just take out the whole address range, thereby including all 3 sites, rather than focus on just the SCO/Caldera sites -- and for technical reasons alone. Never mind that they would *want* to target Canopy as well.
Given all this, it is a pretty safe bet that SCO/Caldera has taken its websites down itself.
Why? To protect themselves from a DDOS attack? No. Any decent firewall could take care of that for them. That's why I suspected that it was not DoS attack: they've simply been down too long.
I don't know *why* they're still down. I wonder if they're about to collapse.
Good Lord, was I the only Doom player who mapped the space bar over the forward arrow key? No more hitting space, just run over it. Then I mapped the shoot key to the space bar. Just bang on that big ass space bar to frag demons, etc.
I still don't get why all games, or at least shooters, use the control key for shooting. I mean, shooting is the whole point of a shooter. And it may as well be the biggest key in front of you.
Sometimes I actually miss DOS.
I don't even have a CRT TV. No TV at all. No CRT. Just the DVD player in my computer and the flat panel monitor.
Television is just too depressing. The concept that you have to schedule a certain amount of time each week, at a specific time, to watch something generated for the purpose of catching your eyeball and exposing it to advertising is just, well, depressing.
Besides, I think there's something about the refresh rate that dulls the brain.
Shooting yourself in the foot with operating systems (from the above referenced link):
Unix: You shoot yourself in the foot.
DOS: You keep running up against the one-bullet barrier.
MS-Windows: The gun blows up in your hand.
Windows NT: The gun is so huge and unwieldy that you have to keep swapping
it from one hand to the other.
OS/2: The gun and the bullet aren't speaking to each other any more.
Mac Finder: It's easy to shoot yourself in the foot -- just point
and shoot.
New Addition
SCO: Insert bullet.
Proceed (Y/N)? Y
Step on Land Mine (Y/N)? Y
Pull Trigger (Y/N)? Y
Cannot pull trigger.
You lost your hands when you stepped on the land mine.
Your feet, legs, genitals, and torso are lost too.
(Abort, Retry, Fail?) R
System Halted
I think that wording is problematic for SCO's case. "Treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT" implies that derivative works in fact do NOT become ATT / SCO's property. If the contract stated that the derivative work was deeded back to ATT, then there would be no need for a separate clause to specify how it should be treated.
In IBM's case, that clause was of course superceded by the side-letter agreement. But even for other vendors, SCO would simply have contract disputes with them for not treating derivative works with the same level of confidentiality as the System V source. They are in no way entitled to claim ownership of the code and license it to the Linux end users.
(Obligatory I'm Not A Lawyer, I Just Play One On Slashdot Disclaimer)
"Don't they have to actually WAIT for the court decision vs. IBM to come through before suing the users?"
No. Their Linux "intellectual property" license and copyright infringement claims have little or nothing to do with the IBM case.
If someone were to challenge them and meet them in court, SCO's claims would mean that SCO has to prove it has "intellectual property" or copyrighted code in the kernel, from anyone or anywhere, not just IBM.
Of course, SCO may need to provide the same proof to win the Red Hat case, but that doesn't mean they can't pursue litigation with other Linux users in the meantime.
"Is there a valid legal argument that makes users vulnerable to litigation
on the basis of copyright infringement?"
No.
(Obligatory: I am not a lawyer.)
"How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?"
Under NDA, of course!
It's not because some computers are faster than others. It's because we count the lines duped in the pre-proc cache.
C'mon people! It's been over 24 hour without a new SCO story. i need a place to vent my constant and continuing rage against them.
I'm going through withdrawal symptons without that opportunity.
It's like stabbing pains in my side. I feel like I'm going to die. Oh no.... Arrrgghh..... Help me someone... please...
Gurgle... gurgle...
Pink froth pouring out of mouth.
A dead body lying prone on the hardwood floor of a Manhattan studio.
Get the chalk...
Anonymous Cowards don't get karma. Sign-up already.
"SCO's reasons for why the GPL is invalid is actually what makes GPL legally strong"
Exactly. I think this is just a floater for Boies, etc., to see how well it will fly. My bet is that the common reaction of "That's insane" will lead them to look for another strategy. Remember, they demanded a trial-by-jury. If they can test drive legal theories in the press, and gauge reaction, then that just works to their advantage.
Well, it wasn't the first impression I got Keanu Reeves...
Read IBM's counter-suit please. They did file for temporary injunction, as well as declatory injunction and permanent injunction: "...in particular from i) misreprenting SCO's rights and IBM's rights to UNIX technology, such that SCO can, will, or has in fact, revoked IBM's right to use UNIX..."
And so on.
Just read your analysis, and I want to say, "Really well-done".
However, I disagree that the Sequent/ATT agreements give "ownership" of Sequent's derivative work to ATT. It seems that Sequent was simply required to treat the derivative work "as if" it were part of the original System V source.
Since ownership was not given to ATT, when the code moved to IBM it would come under IBM's contracts rather than Sequent's.
I'm not a lawyer. I think this is a debatable point, though, and may need a more sophisticated defense than the code that originated at IBM.
Sequent's licenses are available at SCO's web site as Exhibits G & F.
However, they are identical to the first two IBM licenses, Exhibits A & B at SCO's website, so if you've already seen those, then you've pretty much seen the Sequent licenses.
Sequent's agreement with ATT does not give the derivative works to ATT; it merely requires that Sequent treat the derivative works as it would the System V Source code. (Section 2.01, Exhibit F, on SCO's web site.)
The question is whether that requirement to keep the code confidential, etc., is perpetual once implemented, or whether the requirement would become moot under IBM's contracts once they took over Sequent. Since ownership of the code wasn't "deeded" back to ATT, I'm guessing that Sequent's obligations under their old ATT contracts will be superceded by IBM's.
But that is really going to be up to the judge. I don't think any of us can know for sure how that one will go, lawyer or not. But I'm not a lawyer, and it would be really nice to see the opinion of a lawyer who has also read all the documents involved.
Also, keep in mind that their may be other documents we don't know about. Who would have guessed that Novell retained control over SCO's enforcement of the ATT contracts until that little tidbit came out in IBM's counter-claim?
That is a really good question. Tom Carey, an IP lawyer, said in an interview with Mozillaquest.com (I know, I know) that he wasn't sure that IBM's licensing terms would apply to the Sequent code.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've looked through the contracts pretty extensively, and I can't see any wording in the contracts that would apply to "IBM and all its subsidiaries". If there were such language, then I'd guess the Sequent code would now fall under the IBM contracts.
Without that language, the case is a little murkier. Since IBM made Sequent a division of IBM, rather than retaining its corporate identity (as they did with Lotus), I'm guessing that Sequent should be considered a part of IBM now for the purposes of the licensing. The case might be different if the code was supposed to be "deeded" back to ATT, but it's not clear that that is the case.
If it comes up, and it sure looks like it will, then it's something the judge will probably have to decide. There doesn't seem to be any clear wording in any of the contracts to deal with case of IBM taking over another Unix licensee.