|
|
| The Latest on Red Hat |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:54 AM EDT
|
I'm getting a lot of email asking about Red Hat. In our last episode, we learned that SCO was supposed to file on the 10th its reply to Red Hat's answering brief to SCO's Motion to Dismiss, according to the Stipulation and Order to Extend Time which the judge so ordered on October 6.
I checked the court docket, and there is nothing listed yet on that. I then called the judge's chambers, and they said if SCO filed at, say 4:30 PM on Friday, and Monday was a holiday, there'd be no way the material would be up yet. So, patience. Trust me, though. They won't miss the deadline. I'll keep you posted. Those of you with Pacer accounts can check also. There is no publicly available web site with information, unlike Utah. The case is #03-CV-772 .
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Today is also D Day for SGI ..... any news / SCOSpeak on this?
Mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
thanks PJ
the waiting is so hard
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
No SCO press release on SGI today, yet?
Maybe it will come during the day?
I wonder if Novell have been in communication with SCO about this, in a similar
fashion to the IBM case?
If SCO were to accept Novell's right to waive any puported right to terminate
for SGI, wouldn't that be pretty close to admitting that Novell could do that
for IBM too?
IANAL, but if I were SGI (unless they have already got a statement from SCO
saying it won't attempt to terminate), I would be ready for a SCO press
release... like maybe somebody sitting in a car ready to run up the court house
steps within seconds of a SCO press release. Heck, maybe I'd just tell them to
run up now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
The only "new" development is that SCO now has a third motion
pending. I'm no lawyer but it seems they are definitely stalling and hedging
their bets so if one motion is denied, then another one is in line for
consideration. Besides the 10/10 deadline for SCO to respond to Red Hat, Red Hat
also has until 10/16 to respond to the motion to stay discovery and until 10/22
to respond to the motion for enlargement of time.
10/8/03 17 MOTION by SCO Group Inc. For Enlargment of Time to Respond to
Pltf's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of
Documents and Things Answer Brief due 10/22/03 re: [17-1] motion (ft) [Entry
date 10/09/03][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
Well I have to wonder about something...
Since Monday morning, Redhat is up over $2.20 or so (yay for me and other RHAT
holders). That's a big jump for their stock price. Further, I have yet to see
any press releases or major announcements with respect to Redhat. Perhaps the
market knows something we don't? Or maybe someone big is gambling on them?
Just curious...
Christopher F.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
Interesting Form 4
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203000071/xslF345X02/edg
ardoc.xml
Make sure you
1. Read the whole thing
2. Read the whole thing *carefully*[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
This is the code that Jack wrote.
This is the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This the RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay in the
code that Jack wrote.
This is SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the
function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the
RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX
that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack
wrote.
This is the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by
SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the function that
lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that
protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the
RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
This is the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that
mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX
that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack
wrote.
This is the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by the customer
who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license
offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the
function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the
confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA
that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with
the RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat
lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by the customer who searched the
website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that
claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay in the
code that Jack wrote.
Here is the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO
Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by
the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the
license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used
the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that
mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat
lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by the customer who searched the
website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that
claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay in the
code that Jack wrote.
Here is another NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in
the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press
Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by the
customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the
license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used
the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the clueless analysts who signed the NDA that once covered the SCOForum
code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock
propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned
the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the
NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped
with the RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here are the bizarre conclusions from the clueless analysts who signed the NDA
that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit
that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the
Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by the customer who searched
the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO
that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay
in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the Linux community rebutting the bizarre conclusions from the clueless
analysts who signed the NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples
referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the
SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt
by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected
the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that
used the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
Here is the business world watching the Linux community rebutting the bizarre
conclusions from the clueless analysts who signed the NDA that once covered the
SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX
stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that
mentioned the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that
mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX
that shipped with the RCU that used the function that lay in the code that Jack
wrote.
Here is the misunderstanding felt in the business world watching the Linux
community rebutting the bizarre conclusions from the clueless analysts who
signed the NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM
countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release
decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that mentioned the confusion felt by the customer
who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license
offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that used the
function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Here's another example of mindless word salad.
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=125536&liArti
cleT
ypeID=13&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=9&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&
;nPage=1
This guy is head of IT at King & Shaxson bond brokers (you know the type,
three
button suit MBA in hand). He hasn't a clue about the IBM v. SCO dispute but
knows threatening a lawsuit demanding money is the right thing to do. Reflexive
litigation as a business model. Do they actually pay people who say these
things? Maybe choosing physics was the wrong course...
"I do not know what the result of the SCO versus IBM case will be, but I
do know
that SCO chief executive Darl McBride and his company are doing what they are
paid for in demanding that all users of Linux containing the 2.4 kernel must
pay
a licence fee or face legal action." --- Dominic Connor
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sue 'em by God! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- Sue 'em by God! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Here's Daniel Lyons of "What SCO wants SCO gets" fame.
Eben Moglen has succumbed to the will of the Dark Side.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
We are a society of laws. We need stronger laws to protect our intellectual
property. I propose:
Public License Extortion
Section 1) A person who forces a commercial entity to knowingly incorporate
software licensed under The General Public License or GPL into their
products shall be guilty of Public License Extortion.
Section 2) Public License Extortion is a felony punishable by a maximum
of five years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine or both.
Section 3) It is not a defense that the charged person is an employee of the
commercial entity.
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003101402426OSLL
FSF replies to Forbes article.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
Thank you for a wonderful article, since you do not seem to mind, I will write a
book from all your articles and publish it under my name. (Not really)
Seriously, what would you have an independent programmer do, if someone does not
want to abide by the license his software code is released under? Linksys copied
Linux software into hardware eproms. Linksys did not have to choose open source
as a base to build from. They saved on R+D by starting this way. Are the open
source developers asking that all hardware with this code be recalled?
No, Just any changes made to their code by Linksys be made public. Everyone
seems to think that a developer should give up rights to his code under the GPL
to be freely used for commercial products like SCO and Linksys. The developer
retains all copyrights to his code, you can only use it on his terms.
(SCO might ask Cisco/Linksys for $699.00 per unit for unproven "IP"
claims though)
The SCO story, is a matter of public record that SCO (as Caldera) knowingly
contributed a lot of code to the Linux kernel. Now they say they did not know.
SCO also copied Linux code into Unixware, in the form of drivers for USB that
were copied word for word from Linux. Ask Darl McBride about how SCO Unixware
did not support USB, until recieving the United Linux USB drivers from Suse.
Suddenly SCO went from no USB, to supporting only the devices previously
supported by Suse Linux. The attack on Linux is a pre-emptive attack, SCO knows
that they would have been caught shortly anyway.
There is no SCO owned code in Linux. SCO knows there is no infringing code in
Linux. SCO will delay court as long as possible.
SCO would also have us believe that Millions of Linux developers cannot code as
well as SCO's lawyers.
Norman Madden
---
Vescere bracis meis.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=14448&category=main
M$ just keeps on getting hit
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dark on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
I hope you'll forgive me if I've gotten confused by now... but isn't today
the revised date for SCO to send invoices to Linux users? I wait in eager
anticipation :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Invoices? - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- Invoices? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:33 PM EDT
- Invoices? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Invoices? - Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- Invoices? - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 06:29 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5091306.html
showing that companies are not taking sco serious
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
Can I still buy SCO Linux
http://www.go2unix.com/store/index.php3?cat=259419[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
| Just noticed this in SCO's IP license for
Linux FAQ:
27.
I am a member of a corporate IT staff
(developer) and I distribute a
customized Linux OS to internal data centers.
What license do I need to
obtain from SCO? Each system
that runs an
operating system that contains SCO IP needs to be licensed to use
SCO
IP in executable (binary) form. The SCO IP License for Linux is the
vehicle
that SCO is offering to accomplish this. SCO doesn't offer any
license that
grants the right to ship SCO IP in source form as a stand
alone product, or as
part of any other product, either internally or
externally. SCO cannot license
its source code for use with Linux
because SCO's UNIX source code licenses are
incompatible with the terms
of the GPL. To protect its rights and the rights of
our existing UNIX
licensees, suppliers and licensors, SCO cannot condone
licensing or
distribution of our source code under the GPL.
28.
If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of
an
in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the
value of
correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when
my company as a
whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property?
What should I do?
Consider migrating from
an in house customized version of Linux
to a shrink wrap, off the shelf
version of Linux and purchase the SCO IP license
or switch to an
alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate,
consider
outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution.
SCO
understands that these options are very constraining and is
investigating
alternative that both protect its intellectual property
and are less burdensome
for end users.
Translation: We want you to pay us to use our
IP in Linux, but we don't permit anyone, including yourself, to distribute it.
If you need that really badly, we suggest you pay someone to do it for
you.
This is akin to a prosecutor saying, "Murder is illegal, so if you
really need to kill someone, hire a hitman."
This isn't just failure to
mitigate damages, but public encouragement of allegedly tortious activities --
at least in my layman reading. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
| But you can't download it AFAICT. Anyone fancy going to the courthouse? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
I didn't see if this was posted yet - just in case here it is again.
10/10/03 18 Reply Brief Filed by SCO Group Inc. [8-1] motion to Dismiss (ft)
[Entry date 10/14/03]
10/10/03 19 Declaration of Mark J. Heise in support of the SCO Group, Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss (ft) [Entry date 10/14/03]
10/10/03 20 Notice of Deficiency from the court to defendant SCO Group Inc. re
D.I. # 19; No original signature on declaration (ft)[Entry date 10/14/03][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mec on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Here's the latest docket entries:
10/8/03 17 MOTION by SCO Group Inc. For Enlargment of Time to Respond
to Pltf's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request
for Production of Documents and Things Answer Brief due
10/22/03 re: [17-1] motion (ft) [Entry date 10/09/03]
10/10/03 18 Reply Brief Filed by SCO Group Inc. [8-1] motion to Dismiss
(ft) [Entry date 10/14/03]
10/10/03 19 Declaration of Mark J. Heise in support of the SCO Group,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (ft) [Entry date 10/14/03]
10/10/03 20 Notice of Deficiency from the court to defendant SCO Group
Inc. re D.I. # 19; No original signature on declaration (ft)
[Entry date 10/14/03]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
http://tinyurl.com/r1xc
Another consequence of the IRS' crack-down on tax shelters may be litigation
against promoters. If a corporation has a tax shelter, it needs to figure out
what to do with it. If the IRS has attacked it and has filed a notice of
deficiency, the corporation will need to evaluate its chances of prevailing
against the IRS, whether settlement is possible, and whether an action for
damages against the promoter may lie. Indeed, litigation against accounting firm
tax shelter promoters may be the only viable form of mitigation in some cases.
Such litigation raises several issues.
First, many accounting firms specifically limited their liability in the
engagement letters they had their tax shelter clients sign. Attorneys, of
course, are prohibited from putting such language in engagement letters.
Interestingly, if the accounting firm was engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law (see below), then a court might determine that the same standards should
apply, on the principle that a malfeasor should not benefit from his actions.
Second, prevailing in a malpractice action is not as simple as showing that the
tax shelter did not work. Professional malpractice actions are difficult to win,
and the ones that do succeed often involve an objective failure, such as missing
a filing deadline, or violating an ethics rule. In some jurisdictions the
doctrine of "negligence per se" applies whenever a defendant
violates a law or regulation. In this regard, state laws against unauthorized
practice of law may be very helpful. While many jurisdictions permit some tax
planning to be conducted by non-lawyers, the type of analysis required for
corporate tax shelters will necessarily involve interpretation of statutes,
regulations and cases. Some would argue that this type of interpretation
constitutes the practice of law.
Finally, even if these obstacles can be overcome, the measure of damages for a
faulty tax shelter is probably less than the amount the corporation ultimately
pays to the IRS. Tax shelter promoters will argue that in the absence of
entering into the shelter the corporation would have paid the taxes anyway. With
respect to the interest component of the deficiency, the government's interest
rate is often less than the corporation's internal cost of borrowing, so the
promoter will argue the corporation hasn't suffered any damages. However, in
the case of a substantial understatement the interest rate can be bumped 200
basis points. In addition, damages should include any penalties assessed by the
IRS. This is not inconsiderable: the substantial understatement penalty alone is
20%. Finally, any litigant should include the fees paid for the shelter. Some
accounting firms charged very high fees, sometimes based on a percentage of the
tax benefit, and these could constitute the largest portion of damages.
At this point, it is not clear that either SOX or the potential of recoupment
litigation against the big accounting firms will ultimately prove advantageous
to law firm tax lawyers. However, these developments do suggest that
corporations need to re-examine their existing procedures for obtaining tax
planning services.
this also refers to the Sarbanes-Oxley and i found this at this url
http://tinyurl.com/r1zl
1. requiring an attorney to report evidence of a material violation of
securities law or breach of fiduciary duty or similar violation by the company
or any agent thereof, to the chief legal counsel or the chief executive officer
of the company (or the equivalent thereof); and
2. if the counsel or officer does not appropriately respond to the evidence
(adopting, as necessary, appropriate remedial measures or sanctions with respect
to the violation), requiring the attorney to report the evidence to the audit
committee of the board of directors of the issuer or to another committee of the
board of directors comprised solely of directors not employed directly or
indirectly by the issuer, or to the board of directors.
Section 307 raises issues with respect to the manner in which attorneys
representing companies will balance the newly-added obligation to report
corporate misconduct, while fulfilling their obligation to maintain client
confidentiality. Arguably, the new legislation may have only a minimal effect on
attorneys' reporting obligations of corporate misconduct, since the Act does
not require a reporting outside of the corporate structure. However, the Act may
require an attorney, in certain circumstances, to disaffirm submissions on
behalf of the corporation.
notice the comments about the attorneys in the last sentence?
havent figured out how it has to do with redhat case unless this has to do with
the lawyers behavior?
maybe i am fishing in wrong direction?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15 2003 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
is the title of the article found at:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5092081.html
Favorite two sentences:
"...It could be that SCO was concerned that its invoices would unfairly
target only a subset of the market or that it was daunted by the possibility
that it would have to back up its invoices with a host of lawsuits if companies
refused to pay."
"...SCO's licensing plan has been lambasted by open-source advocates,
criticized by analysts, and ignored by 84 percent of chief information officers
polled in a September survey. Nevertheless, SCO has signed up an unnamed Fortune
500 company with a "large number" of Linux servers."
SCO's credibility as a legal threat is nil with 84% of CIOs, and, if you trust
my math, 499 of the Fortune 500 companies. SCO is a toothless paper tiger. How
might this be effectively communicated to the next round of SCOX buyers?
(Posted msg #52386 Yahoo! Finance board by koalityassurance)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
