He is a drag queen, goes by the stage name
"Darlene the Bride".
Dressed in a white bridal gown and vail, except for black garters, black fishnet stockings and a black pushup bra with latex falseys. Has three days of beard growth, a big fat cigar and smelling of large quantities of gin.
Patriot Act will now be challenged by one or more of the larger press companies on the grounds that asking for such information is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
And, the press, IMHO, will win, finding the Patriot Act (or a number of provisions of it) extremely unconstitutional.
THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT CLAIM MADE BY SCO VS. IBM IN THEIR LAWSUIT!
Now that that is out of the way, here is the correct information:
SCO is accusing IBM of writing code (which IBM owns the copyright and patents to) and contributing it to Linux.
SCO claims that this is a breach of contract regarding IBM's license with SCO for System V Unix, trying to claim that IBM's code is a "derivative" of SCO's System V Unix.
The code worked with (but was not a re-write or part of IBM's AIX, which is based on SCO Unix).
IBM had an agreement which assigns ownership of all "derivative" works to SCO Unix System V that IBM developed. However, IBM has an addendum to this stating that IBM owns this code.
SCO's whole case hinges on whether they can convince a court that IBM's owned, copyrighted and patented code is somehow a "derivative work" of SCO Unix. That is very very unlikely to happen.
SCO is either completely and utterly ignorant (or collectively insane) or they knew they did not have a case to begin with, and this is all just part of a scheme to try to extort money from Linux users and to pump and dump SCOX stock.
But, do not take my work for it. Do the research yourself. Google is a wonderful thing.
You are a troll, you posted this same think in C.O.L.A.
The reason is probably because you are too lazy to actually learn something about how a compter works and how different operating systems and software work.
It might benefit you to actually sit down and learn how a computer works, how different operating systems run, basic commands, finding items, etc.
And, if you did your research, you would know that you can set up a perfectly acceptable click 'n drool (i.e. Windows like) desktop for Linux, freeing you from the task of learning too much about Linux.
But, that research might be more than you could handle as well. Might have to do ONE google search to locate such an item.
If my recall is correct, SCO "edited" this same image within the last three months, saw a story or some data in the C.O.L.A. news group about that.
I wish I had the "before" and "after" editing ones, would be interesting to see what was changed, added, removed, etc.
And, that being the case, if they intend to use this in court, I am sure copies of the "before" and "after" would be valuable to a number of people. I might also add, that I am 95 percent certain that SCO intends to enter this as evidence to try to support their case.
What is even more "bizarre" is that SCO has not claimed even one instance of copyright infringement in their suit vs. IBM.
Their only such "claims" have been stated or hinted at in their torrent of press releases, interviews, etc.
The $3 billion they are asking for, was originally only $1 billion before they amended their lawsuite vs. IBM.
From what I saw in comparing both suits, it appears that some (not all) of the blatant falsehoods, generalities and non-seqiturs were removed or greatly modified.
Seems to me, that SCO was hoping that IBM would flinch at the $1 biiillllion, and when IBM yawned and looked extremely bored, SCO got riled.
SCO said (to themselves) "Oh yeah, we will show them, we are going to sue them for... uh, let me see, what would really scare them? I know, $3 biiillllllion! Bwahahahahah! And we will revoke their license also, that will fix them good!" (Insert insane cackling laughter here.)
So, in summary, what SCO thinks (or imagines through very hard core dillusions) their "IP" is worth, and given their IP's insignifance in the market place, I submit that the real "worth" of their IP is worth less than the current selling price of one of their grossly over priced shares of stock.
It might be worth a little bit more than that, when a court finally has SCO and IBM in a court room, and SCO is found begging on its hands and knees for IBM to settle with them. The result possibly being that IBM owns the licenses to UNIX that SCO currently does, and SCO becomes a grease spot in the "Tech Companies that Were" history books.
IMHO, and IANASB (I am not a stock broker), your best bet might be to short the stock, if possible.
Lots of volume of shares have changed hands since March 2003, so I do not think there will be a lot out there just sitting around that a broker would let you borrow to short.
I could be wrong, but haven't looked into the matter fully, nor would I want to even own one share of SCOX, to try to "profit" from it. That would make me sick enough to my stomach, that I would probably projectile vomit on my monitor.;)
I just visisted Yahoo Finance and took a look at their one year SCOX chart.
Most it it was what I expected, stock price gradually going down, little by little, until right about time the filed their lawsuit vs. IBM.
Then, I noticed the tiny bar graph at the bottom of the chart, and spotted something very very interesting:
Namely, that there was practically no stock volume prior to their filing their suit vs. IBM.
Then, from that time on, large and very easily seen volumes of stock changing hands.
Seems to me, that this would be a prime indicator of "something is wrong with this picture" and would warrant a very hard look by the SEC and DoJ. Well, one would hope so, anyway.
The more Darl and company talk, the better and better it gets for IBM, Red Hat, the Linux community, open source, etc.
Plus, I get to exercise my stomach muscles regularly from laughing hysterically with almost each absurd utterance of "The SCO Group". It's about the only exercise I get, unless you count typing over 80 plus WPM as "exercise".
And, I will point out, that starting as far back as about a year ago, Darl and his gang have made statement that were either "indirectly" or "directly" derisive or threatening to Red Hat.
As a result, I am certain that these will be used against SCO when Red Hat finally gets some say in court regarding the suit the filed vs. The SCO Group.
A google search will locate such utterances from Darl and his "boys".
Not necessarily new, but I have not received "any" such e-mails in weeks.
And, this morning's count was 69 like messages.
However, some of the headers and setup was more inventive, some with attachments (from "Microsoft") and most not.
Subjects: "Advice", "Returned", "Message Undeliverable", "Error" and similar, even some blank subjects.
Our CIO is on it, and we have standard procedures to immediately "Trash" such and then empty the "Trash" folder.
No analysis of the ".bat" or ".exe" files was done with my anti-virus software, due to having deleted them. So, not exactly sure if this is a "new" worm or just an old one where some previously infected systems got back on the net, or something similar.
"How can we spin this to get people to upgrade to XP and other OSes?"
Of course they would encourage users to upgrade to later versions of their own OSes!
Can't have all these people out there with >= Windows 98 SE, when we have "big" plans for them (i.e. remote disabling of applications, deleting of files, etc.).
Well, I have yet to see even one report or press release from SCO that they have actually sent invoices. All the reports I have seen are that they will send them or are about to send them.
Frankly, I do not think they will ever send them. Why? Because they will get dragged into court by most of the companies receving them saying "Where is the proof that I owe you more than a one fingered salute?"
The last thing SCO wants is MORE court cases, as it would ruin their timetable for their pump and dump scheme.
Whenever Darl and his boys open their mouths. You may not here "open source" directly, but it is always implied. Because Unca Bill said to do it that way.:P
Actually the "any publicity is good publicity" is a false premise.
Constant nagging negative publicity will eventually change public opinion.
However, the fortunate thing is, from my experience in public relations and marketing, is that constant nagging negative publicity, when coming from a single source, will eventually back fire on that source. It's kind of like the source gets painted as being "nagging" and "negative" because that is what they are doing.
You handle attacks, get out the correct factual information to counter the attack and false information. But, that main thing is, for any company, to keep producing their software (or hardware or other product) or improving it and getting these out into the market.
The trick is to handle the attack in such a way that your company, group, etc., gains market share, becomes more influential, etc. as a result.
It can and has been by many companies over the years, the ones that are still around.
Unfortunately for SCO, they have already lost the PR and marketing battle in this regards, and are just going through they final death throes now.
I, as one of many (I am certain), will only shed tears of joy when they finally meet their demise which they crafted for themselves.
Doesn't this mean that the longer they refuse to allow Linux developers to see and remove code, the more they hurt their own IP and copyright claims against Linux?
Precisely. And, there are time limits on filing a suit regarding copyright infringement when it comes to damages, etc. I do not have exact data on this, however.
As your for you comment about "trade secrets", you are exactly right. If it is already in Linux, it is no longer a "trade secret". As a result, that part of their case vs. IBM has no teeth whatsoever.
So, either SCO is correct, that their code is in Linux (which would negate their claim that IBM violated their "trade secrets" OR there is no SCO code in Linux and their press release and interview claims are bogus. Which, would mean that RedHat would have a field day with SCO regarding the suit RedHat filed vs. SCO.
Either way, it is a lose lose proposition for SCO. And it couldn't happen to a "nicer" bunch of folks. (Note: Extreme sarcasm on the "nicer" adjective.)
Slashdot Mirror
Darl dresses in drag, all painted up, gets smashed on too much gin and belts out slurred show tunes sitting on Mr. Sontag's lap.
And I will hire a professional video camera person to record such. ;)
Regards,
Fredrick
He is a drag queen, goes by the stage name "Darlene the Bride".
Dressed in a white bridal gown and vail, except for black garters, black fishnet stockings and a black pushup bra with latex falseys. Has three days of beard growth, a big fat cigar and smelling of large quantities of gin.
Sings show tunes, terribly off key.
Regards,
Fredrick
Patriot Act will now be challenged by one or more of the larger press companies on the grounds that asking for such information is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
And, the press, IMHO, will win, finding the Patriot Act (or a number of provisions of it) extremely unconstitutional.
Regards,
Fredrick
By the way, the only copyright infringement or IP infringement claims made by SCO have been in their press releases, interviews, etc.
These have either been direct accusations or merely hinted at by various corporate officers or senior executives of The SCO Group.
Regards,
Fredrick
Correction.
THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT CLAIM MADE BY SCO VS. IBM IN THEIR LAWSUIT!
Now that that is out of the way, here is the correct information:
SCO is accusing IBM of writing code (which IBM owns the copyright and patents to) and contributing it to Linux.
SCO claims that this is a breach of contract regarding IBM's license with SCO for System V Unix, trying to claim that IBM's code is a "derivative" of SCO's System V Unix.
The code worked with (but was not a re-write or part of IBM's AIX, which is based on SCO Unix).
IBM had an agreement which assigns ownership of all "derivative" works to SCO Unix System V that IBM developed. However, IBM has an addendum to this stating that IBM owns this code.
SCO's whole case hinges on whether they can convince a court that IBM's owned, copyrighted and patented code is somehow a "derivative work" of SCO Unix. That is very very unlikely to happen.
SCO is either completely and utterly ignorant (or collectively insane) or they knew they did not have a case to begin with, and this is all just part of a scheme to try to extort money from Linux users and to pump and dump SCOX stock.
But, do not take my work for it. Do the research yourself. Google is a wonderful thing.
Regards,
Fredrick
You are a troll, you posted this same think in C.O.L.A.
The reason is probably because you are too lazy to actually learn something about how a compter works and how different operating systems and software work.
It might benefit you to actually sit down and learn how a computer works, how different operating systems run, basic commands, finding items, etc.
And, if you did your research, you would know that you can set up a perfectly acceptable click 'n drool (i.e. Windows like) desktop for Linux, freeing you from the task of learning too much about Linux.
But, that research might be more than you could handle as well. Might have to do ONE google search to locate such an item.
If my recall is correct, SCO "edited" this same image within the last three months, saw a story or some data in the C.O.L.A. news group about that.
I wish I had the "before" and "after" editing ones, would be interesting to see what was changed, added, removed, etc.
And, that being the case, if they intend to use this in court, I am sure copies of the "before" and "after" would be valuable to a number of people. I might also add, that I am 95 percent certain that SCO intends to enter this as evidence to try to support their case.
Which I find utterly laughable. :)
Regards,
Fredrick
What is even more "bizarre" is that SCO has not claimed even one instance of copyright infringement in their suit vs. IBM.
Their only such "claims" have been stated or hinted at in their torrent of press releases, interviews, etc.
The $3 billion they are asking for, was originally only $1 billion before they amended their lawsuite vs. IBM.
From what I saw in comparing both suits, it appears that some (not all) of the blatant falsehoods, generalities and non-seqiturs were removed or greatly modified.
Seems to me, that SCO was hoping that IBM would flinch at the $1 biiillllion, and when IBM yawned and looked extremely bored, SCO got riled.
SCO said (to themselves) "Oh yeah, we will show them, we are going to sue them for... uh, let me see, what would really scare them? I know, $3 biiillllllion! Bwahahahahah! And we will revoke their license also, that will fix them good!" (Insert insane cackling laughter here.)
So, in summary, what SCO thinks (or imagines through very hard core dillusions) their "IP" is worth, and given their IP's insignifance in the market place, I submit that the real "worth" of their IP is worth less than the current selling price of one of their grossly over priced shares of stock.
It might be worth a little bit more than that, when a court finally has SCO and IBM in a court room, and SCO is found begging on its hands and knees for IBM to settle with them. The result possibly being that IBM owns the licenses to UNIX that SCO currently does, and SCO becomes a grease spot in the "Tech Companies that Were" history books.
Regards,
Fredrick
IMHO, and IANASB (I am not a stock broker), your best bet might be to short the stock, if possible.
Lots of volume of shares have changed hands since March 2003, so I do not think there will be a lot out there just sitting around that a broker would let you borrow to short.
I could be wrong, but haven't looked into the matter fully, nor would I want to even own one share of SCOX, to try to "profit" from it. That would make me sick enough to my stomach, that I would probably projectile vomit on my monitor. ;)
Regards,
Fredrick
I just visisted Yahoo Finance and took a look at their one year SCOX chart.
Most it it was what I expected, stock price gradually going down, little by little, until right about time the filed their lawsuit vs. IBM.
Then, I noticed the tiny bar graph at the bottom of the chart, and spotted something very very interesting:
Namely, that there was practically no stock volume prior to their filing their suit vs. IBM.
Then, from that time on, large and very easily seen volumes of stock changing hands.
Seems to me, that this would be a prime indicator of "something is wrong with this picture" and would warrant a very hard look by the SEC and DoJ. Well, one would hope so, anyway.
Regards,
Fredrick
I just searched msn.com for Linux.
Was surprised to find a large number of listings.
First couple at the top of "common searches" showed Linux Operating System, Linux Red Hat and two others.
Even down the page a bit was link to Red Hat's site plus Linuxjournal, and a few other popular Linux related sites.
I was actually surprised I got what I got, much more than I expected.
Of course, all I expected was one link with Microsoft's TCO comparison between Windows and Linux.
Is Microsoft slippling?
Regards,
Fredrick
Ugh, I am a moron.
Ignore the previous post.
Wrong place.
SCOX stock is down from a high of $19.80 to about $19.20.
We should have some more shrill and funny comments spewing from Darl's mouth any minute now to pump the stock price back up.
However, I do not think his words will have much affect on the stock price in the short term future.
Regards,
Fredrick
I agree!
The more Darl and company talk, the better and better it gets for IBM, Red Hat, the Linux community, open source, etc.
Plus, I get to exercise my stomach muscles regularly from laughing hysterically with almost each absurd utterance of "The SCO Group". It's about the only exercise I get, unless you count typing over 80 plus WPM as "exercise".
Regards,
Fredrick
And, I will point out, that starting as far back as about a year ago, Darl and his gang have made statement that were either "indirectly" or "directly" derisive or threatening to Red Hat.
As a result, I am certain that these will be used against SCO when Red Hat finally gets some say in court regarding the suit the filed vs. The SCO Group.
A google search will locate such utterances from Darl and his "boys".
Regards,
Fredrick
Not necessarily new, but I have not received "any" such e-mails in weeks.
And, this morning's count was 69 like messages.
However, some of the headers and setup was more inventive, some with attachments (from "Microsoft") and most not.
Subjects: "Advice", "Returned", "Message Undeliverable", "Error" and similar, even some blank subjects.
Our CIO is on it, and we have standard procedures to immediately "Trash" such and then empty the "Trash" folder.
No analysis of the ".bat" or ".exe" files was done with my anti-virus software, due to having deleted them. So, not exactly sure if this is a "new" worm or just an old one where some previously infected systems got back on the net, or something similar.
Regards,
Fredrick
I do know that Win2K, WinNT, Win98SE and Win98 require re-boot after patch.
No way around it for patch to become "effective", that I am aware of.
Not sure if it has to do with registry registration or something of that nature for sure.
Regards,
Fredrick
Marketoid advice:
"How can we spin this to get people to upgrade to XP and other OSes?"
Of course they would encourage users to upgrade to later versions of their own OSes!
Can't have all these people out there with >= Windows 98 SE, when we have "big" plans for them (i.e. remote disabling of applications, deleting of files, etc.).
Regards,
Fredrick
Have patch, firewall, etc. here at my company.
In the last 2 hours, I have received five messages all noting that my "message was underliverable" or similar wording.
No "attachment" (use Netscape 4.7x here at work for e-mail handling). But, a look at the source showed the payloads.
One was a ".bat" file, others were randomly named ".exe" files.
In analyzing the headers, most (three of five) appear to have originated from a "Comcast" server.
The time stamp on the messages of the messages ranged from 19:30 GMT to 16:30 GMT -4.
Something is spewing on the net.
Regards,
Fredrick
I guess I rattled your chain, not intending to do so.
So you found it boring, etc. Fine.
I wanted to post what I did, so I did, no care for "karma", being boring or not, etc.
I am not here to entertain "you". I guess that's who you were referring to with the general "us".
I am kind of surprised you took such offense at my post. Oh, well.
Regards,
Fredrick
Too bad I have never purchased Microsoft Office, Word, Home Essentials, Works Suite or Excel.
Never needed them, nor would I ever use them on my home computers.
Have Win98 SE, Win2K and WinXP systems at home, with the Win98 SE system soon to be turned in to a Debian Linux system. :)
I have purchased Microsoft OSes (DOS, Windows, etc.) over the years, but that is the ONLY Microsoft software I have ever needed or wanted to purchase.
I can tell you this, I have purchased my last Microsoft OS, I will never purchase another OS or anything from Microsoft ever again.
Regards,
Fredrick
Well, I have yet to see even one report or press release from SCO that they have actually sent invoices. All the reports I have seen are that they will send them or are about to send them.
Frankly, I do not think they will ever send them. Why? Because they will get dragged into court by most of the companies receving them saying "Where is the proof that I owe you more than a one fingered salute?"
The last thing SCO wants is MORE court cases, as it would ruin their timetable for their pump and dump scheme.
Regards,
Fredrick
Whenever Darl and his boys open their mouths. You may not here "open source" directly, but it is always implied. Because Unca Bill said to do it that way. :P
Regards,
Fredrick
Actually the "any publicity is good publicity" is a false premise.
Constant nagging negative publicity will eventually change public opinion.
However, the fortunate thing is, from my experience in public relations and marketing, is that constant nagging negative publicity, when coming from a single source, will eventually back fire on that source. It's kind of like the source gets painted as being "nagging" and "negative" because that is what they are doing.
You handle attacks, get out the correct factual information to counter the attack and false information. But, that main thing is, for any company, to keep producing their software (or hardware or other product) or improving it and getting these out into the market.
The trick is to handle the attack in such a way that your company, group, etc., gains market share, becomes more influential, etc. as a result.
It can and has been by many companies over the years, the ones that are still around.
Unfortunately for SCO, they have already lost the PR and marketing battle in this regards, and are just going through they final death throes now.
I, as one of many (I am certain), will only shed tears of joy when they finally meet their demise which they crafted for themselves.
Regards,
Fredrick
Doesn't this mean that the longer they refuse to allow Linux developers to see and remove code, the more they hurt their own IP and copyright claims against Linux?
Precisely. And, there are time limits on filing a suit regarding copyright infringement when it comes to damages, etc. I do not have exact data on this, however.
As your for you comment about "trade secrets", you are exactly right. If it is already in Linux, it is no longer a "trade secret". As a result, that part of their case vs. IBM has no teeth whatsoever.
So, either SCO is correct, that their code is in Linux (which would negate their claim that IBM violated their "trade secrets" OR there is no SCO code in Linux and their press release and interview claims are bogus. Which, would mean that RedHat would have a field day with SCO regarding the suit RedHat filed vs. SCO.
Either way, it is a lose lose proposition for SCO. And it couldn't happen to a "nicer" bunch of folks. (Note: Extreme sarcasm on the "nicer" adjective.)
Regards,
Fredrick