|
|
| Linus: What Subpoena? Update: He Just Got It |
 |
|
Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 09:41 PM EST
|
As you probably heard, SCO is claiming that they sent subpoenas to Linus and the Pope. No, only kidding. But they do say they sent to the following: "SCO said Wednesday that it has filed subpoenas with the U.S. District Court in Utah, targeting six different individuals or organizations. Those include Novell; Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel; Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation ; Stewart Cohen, chief executive of the Open Source Development Labs ; and John Horsley , general counsel of Transmeta.
"SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said he did not know what the subpoenas asked for, but 'I know that some of them have been served.'" I checked with Linus, and he says he didn't get one yet. UPDATE He just got his subpoena. Served him during dinner. I also checked with the courthouse. Nothing there. Since there are no verifiable facts as of yet, and no, a Blake Stowell statement doesn't count as a fact with me, let's play make-believe. What if SCO saw Daniel Lyons' article in Forbes about the IBM subpoenas they served on BayStar and the analysts and decided to hastily do a copycat routine to get headlines back for themselves and attention away from BayStar and all that? You think? Say, how has that stock been doing, anyway? Oh, dearie me. Down to 14.73 at closing. I wonder what will happen tomorrow? Think it might go up? You know, it isn't exactly normal to announce who you are going to subpoena. For one thing, the party might go on a 2-year world cruise on a raft or something, and then you might find them hard to timely serve. Not that I'm trying to give Linus any suggestions, of course. But a guy might just find himself pining for the fjords. The whole thing just smells very, very odd. I wonder why reporters don't notice such things and ask Blake some obvious followup questions when they get these phone calls, like what do you think somebody else's lawyer is going to tell you? Then there is the math. They said six, but there are only five listed. I guess they don't teach math to journalism majors.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:07 PM EST |
When I first read about the SCO subpoenas, I didn't believe they were
serious. As more and more people are finding out about SCO, you can't
believe anything they say. I honestly believe that it was a publicity stunt.
What gives it away to me is what Blake Stowell said about the subpoenas
when he said he didn't know what they were about.
How can a bigwig at SCO invovled in a multibillion dollar lawsuit not
know what a simple subpoena would be about. Sure, he probably
wouldn't give away clues with where SCO would potentially be going with
them, but he could have just said "No comment" about the subpoenas.
I agree with you PJ that this is a stunt to prop up the stock. It has really
dipped over the past few days and SCO needs to do something to pump
it up. Honestly, I would love for SCO to get all the guys they supposedly
subpoenaed up on the stand. Stallman would rip them a new one. It
would be hilarious to watch. In a way, too bad no subpoenas went out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:16 PM EST |
That would prove once and for all these guys are total wack jobs, wouldn't it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:20 PM EST |
Honestly, this was so predictable in a general sort of way. Has there
been any legal step IBM has taken that SCO didn't then turn around and
imitate? It's as if they are learning as they go how to handle legal
matters, and doing a miserable job of imitation. RMS? Are you kidding
me? Hooo boy, would that be a sight.
But yeah, I also noticed this was only reported, not confirmed, and it
seemed odd. Any other case I've read about about subpoenas being
issued, the story gets written when the people actually get the
subpoenas in hand. Maybe the same department that is issuing licenses
to all those who called in to SCO is also getting around to sending out
those subpoenas. Kind of hard to catch your breath in that department.
I also noticed the nosedive of the stock over the past week (about 5
points in 5 days, but more significantly about 25% of the value of the
stock has tanked). I kind of figured we were due for some more FUD to
prop up the stock price, but I have to admit being bemused by the actual
FUD being issued this time. 'Let's see, well bring into the courtroom all
those people who can authoritatively rip our case apart. Yeah, that's the
ticket!'
I did see one message surmise that perhaps they will attempt to use
RMS's hippie-like image as a PR move to state, "See! These people really
are communists! It's un-American, we tell ya!"
Whatever their motive, in the end it won't matter. But it sure can be
entertaining as we watch them hurtle toward the cliff.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ninguino on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:23 PM EST |
Well, even if this subpoenas are true, does it matter?. I mean, do we have
something to hide?. No, so only good can come form hearing Linus and RMS and
co.
Obviously, they (SCO and partners) are worried from what can come from hearing
Didio and co regarding what they know and how and why did their talk affected
SCO stock, but is there any reason we should be worried? I don't think so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:29 PM EST
- Not unexpected - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:35 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:24 PM EST |
IANAL
I would expect at least some of these people, if they get subpoenas, to object
or file motions to quash or modify. Then SCO has to come up with a good reason
why the subpoenas are necessary etc.
I can understand SCO might want to know stuff about contracts or IBM
communications with Novell (such as the background to the two letters).
I find it hard to rationalize what Transmeta or RMS would have to usefully say.
As far as I know, neither have contributed to Linux (I think Linus did it while
at Transmeta, but essentially for himself), and neither have are likely to have
any knowledge of IBM's contracts.
And subpoenas aside, I don't see how this is going to help SCO with Dec 5.
Sticking with RMS (as an obvious example): Assuming for a moment, RMS one for
example, ain't just a PR stunt - maybe SCO are hoping to redesign their case as
a GPL=trust/unfair-competition theory
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:25 PM EST |
Well, you see, the process servers were all too busy, and they needed a street
address, and the last address they knew was his mother's place in Helsinki, and
getting it translated (unnecessarily) into Finnish was slow, and then they
realized it should have been Swedish, but then they found the old Silicon Valley
address from before they bought the house, and...
See, there are excuses^H^H^H^H^H^H^reasons for everything.
---
73 de w4ti[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:35 PM EST |
This is intended as hypothetical, not a suggestion.
If they don't actually serve Linus, can he get in any trouble?
For example, imagine he were to take a 3 week cruise tomorrow (say arriving back
Dec 6).
Not because he has anything to hide of course, just because he deserves it and
wants to be away from the hassles of home.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bad Idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:58 PM EST
- Bad Idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:14 PM EST
- Bad Idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:52 PM EST
- Linus takes a vacation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:46 PM EST
- Nope. - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:35 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 10:36 PM EST |
I can't believe Deutsche Bank seeks to do business with this bunch of
idiots. Sure, analysts are often morons (if they would really know what
the hell they are talking about they would silently buy stock and get rich
instead of giving people advise about it), but Deutsche's management
can't be that ignorant to not see that they will get all dirty when this shit
hits the fan. Everybody who stands nearby (Deutsche, BayStar, Canopy,
Didio) is going to look like a complete failure. This is all so simple and
obvious FUD. Where the hack is the SEC? What the hell are they doing
with my tax dollars. I want SCO stopped NOW.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:08 PM EST |
This might be really rude to ask if anyone here is a journalist, but this
case is seriously making me wonder:
Is it just on this case where journalists are an easily fooled pack of lazy
nitwits who won't even bother to doublecheck their sources, or indeed bother to
check their facts at all, or is this the state of journalism all around?
Should we bother trusting newspapers and such, or do they do the same poor
job of checking up on their stories before publishing them that they've done in
this instance? Just how gullible/lazy are journalists in general?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: eloj on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:23 PM EST
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:42 PM EST
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:29 AM EST
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:37 AM EST
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:00 AM EST
- IAAJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:06 PM EST
- Journalism - Authored by: Dark on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:33 AM EST
- Journalism - Authored by: fb on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:22 AM EST
- Linus: What Subpoena? - Authored by: darthaggie on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:13 AM EST
- Are all Journos lazy? - Authored by: old joe on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Newsome on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:19 PM EST |
| Here's what SCO is doing to prop up their stock this time. They called the
local NBC affiliate, KSL, and invited them
down for a story. Blake Stowell and Darl McBride met with them and offered them
some Kool-Aid.
After meeting with SCO, KSL also went looking for "alternate
viewpoints" and managed to end up on campus, where they ran into several of us
Linux users who were willing to speak with them. They interviewed several of us
(I was one) for probably 10-15 minutes each on-camera.
Evidently, they liked
SCO's Kool-Aid slightly better. They didn't quote me at all, and only showed
two short clips with Jason Holt (I'm fine with that. I just wish that they'd
presented our viewpoint better). It came across as another David and Goliath
story, and didn't mention IBM's counterclaims or the facts that I presented. I
plan to follow up with the reporter. He seemed like such a nice guy :)
You
can see the story on KSL's
web
site. ---
Frank Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:21 PM EST |
| So now we find out that the leader of the "Team of experts from MIT" that
pored over the code was the inimitable Richard M. Stallman! Now EVERYTHING
makes sense.
The joke just gets better all the time. SCO is so very clever,
no? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:22 PM EST |
Does SCOG really want to put Linus, RMS, etc. on the stand and ask them
questions? This would seem to be one of the most stupid moves that SCOG could
make. Sort of like handing the case to IBM on a silver platter.
I expect that
IBM would be calling many of those same people in any event, in the unlikely
case that this ever gets to a jury. If SCOG does not cough up some evidence
really soon, say by the time oral arguments are heard, it may be all over for
SCOG except for the (not so) trifle of IBM's countersuit.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmcnabb on Wednesday, November 12 2003 @ 11:56 PM EST |
Hmmm. Linus has been served, but no record at the court house. I wonder is
these could be DMCA subpeonas, which don't have to be signed by a judge.
I wouldn't put it past the boys at Bois to try such a thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:07 AM EST |
Hey I’m not a lawyer but even I can guess at that. Remember in SCO's answer to
IBM's complaint where they use the phrase "We possess insufficient
information to confirm or deny these allegations and so deny them" or some
such phrasing. It would appear that they are actually intending to put Linus
under oath and ask him how he came to make his kernel and what he copied from
Unix. Then they will be able to answer these interrogatories and queries. It
also seems to me that this is simply a continuation of SCO's fishing expedition
to try and find some way of making a grand conspiracy to violate SCO's
copyrights. I assume they feel that if they can establish there is some sort of
pattern of "stealing" from their UNIX copyrights material they can
then simply tar IBM with guilt by association. Alternately their lawyers have
realized they can't get IBM on a narrow assertion so they intend to go for the
whole Linux movement in one fell swoop and show that it's ALL stolen and in
violation of their copyrights. This would make their original discovery relevant
by making everything they provided stolen material. They have after all
continuously used the phrase "including but not limited to". Such an
approach would also please their sometimes-silent partners Microsoft and
Solaris.
I continue to think that Darl started this with the idea of simply committing a
little old-fashioned lawsuit lottery against IBM and then Bill Gates paid him to
get a bit more ambitious. Since IBM wouldn’t play the original game by paying
them off they decided there was no place to go but out and out and out. After
all if they lose, so what? They have sold off their stock and cashed in, what do
they lose? IBM’s countersuit? If SCO loses this challenge, their (SCO's) IP
won’t be worth toilet paper and they can simply leave IBM holding a winning case
against a bankrupt shell. Just a hunch of course, but it seems to me that SCO’s
only course is to charge ahead and hope. No way to disengage and not all the
stock is sold. So go after Linus, go after Transmeta, roll the dice BIG and
hope.
This is tree shaking the whole forest in hopes something falls out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:36 AM EST |
I'm sure at least one thing they'll want from Linus is a list of all of IBM's
contributions and attempted contributions to the kernel.
After all, they read in that article that IBM sent subpoenas to try to get
discovery information that the opponent was not being forthright with. And they
thought, "Hey, that's a great idea! Maybe Linus will tell us what IBM
put into Linux!"
In general, how long would someone have to respond? Do you think they're
asking Linus for a deposition, or for him to turn over information?
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Both.. - Authored by: webster on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:05 AM EST
- Deadline? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:13 AM EST
- Delay. - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:10 AM EST
- Delay. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:42 AM EST
- They want Linux to report IBM's contributions - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 05:01 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:05 AM EST |
perhaps SCO is attempting to create a financial link from IBM to Linus via
Transmeta, trying to make Linus into an unwitting pawn of IBM against SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:16 AM EST |
| This move is so obviously a reaction to the Forbes article that even the judge
will probably laugh at it.
So long as IBM's subpoenas were not a subject of
press attention, SCO didn't care about them or feel any need to do anything
about them. One article appears talking about IBM issuing subpoenas, and all of
a sudden SCO must have subpoenas as well. One can almost hear Darl McBride
arguing with the lawyers. "They have subpoenas! How come we don't have any
subpoenas? It looks like we're falling behind here! Get some subpoenas out
today!"
Like the lawsuit itself, these subpoenas are not serious. The lawyers
didn't want them, or they would have filed them a long time ago. Darl McBride
wanted them. They have nothing to do with legal strategy, they are another
ornament with which to dazzle the press. "SCO fires back! SCO has subpoenas,
too!" That's all McBride cares about. This whole thing is a press stunt. They
are using the courts and the legal system as a plaything in a giant press
relations exercise.
People should go to jail for doing this. This isn't why
the taxpayers support a court system. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:28 AM EST |
So will Linus be kind enough to tell SOMEONE what the contents of that subpoena
is, what SCO is asking? maybe he could even post it, or have someone send the
contents to PJ, I know she'd LOVE to see it (just like the rest of us
actually).
I am not a lawyer, I don't know the rules covering subpoenas, I have no idea if
he can legally make it public, but maybe his "cat" could sneak it
out of the house and someone would find it and kinda accidently leak it... no,
wait, I didn't actually suggest that... :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tazer on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:29 AM EST |
Maybe they're UPS'ng the remaining subpoena to Alan Cox! Nah, the poor bugger
still lives in England, but I bet he'd be willing to give some sort of sworn
statement to IBM. You'd think someone would like to hear about his Caldera
donated hardware, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:10 AM EST |
| Anyone has an idea of who the sixth person or organisation is? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: markus on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:14 AM EST |
I'm for abroed ans don't really know how a subpoena works. What are the
implications of being subpoenaed ?
- Does the
victim
target needs a lawyer ?
- Does he simply needs to answer questions ?
- Is
the target 'only' called as witness ?
- Assuming Linus runs up a $100k
lawyer bill, then SCO looses, can he reclaim his expenses back ?
- One
particular bad thing about the RIAA subpoenas was supposedly that the innocent
victims had legal expenses even when the RIAA got the wrong person. Am I wrong
?
|
| |
| Authored by: john82a on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:21 AM EST |
| Pining for the fjords? None in Finland :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JMonroy on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:43 AM EST |
If SCO's lawyers had any clue, they would have subpoena'd (sp?) Linus on the day
of the filing in order to at least present his testimony to support their
position, if any presented itself.
Of course, even if none presented
itself, SCO would somehow find a way to twist the wording, or intentions of the
words, into their own slanted version (does HP's indemnification PR ring a
bell?).
Somehow, I believe this is an attempt by SCO to inject some
pro-SCO news into the financial markets, further propping their measly,
schizophrenic stock value. I predict that Darl McBride, Chris Sontag and Blake
Stowell will be subpoena'd themselves to appear before a NASDAQ Arbitration
hearing when the investors file a lawsuit against SCO.
BTW, wasn't SCOX
at $20 a couple of weeks ago? What's that? It's lost over 25% since
then?
Yezzzzzzzz,.... of course, this all falls into the regular
pattern of the SCO FUD machine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: findlay on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:58 AM EST |
| Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds in my own downtown SLC? Wow, to have one's
picture taken with living legends.
/me goes to
scrounge up my old-fashioned point-and-shoot-camera. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tazer on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:06 AM EST |
Interesting ZDNet article(IBM 180):
IBM Paints Linux Blue
And the Linux
Kernel Mailing List Thread, 12/19/1998, that ensued:
Article:
IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:26 AM EST |
I`m not from the U.S. so sorry if this is a silly question but will this trial
be on TV ? It would be great to watch how this thing pans out - especially if
someone like RMS takes the stand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:49 AM EST |
It would seem probable that while SCO has no evidence on the table, these
subpoenas would be regarded as 'fishing expeditions', ie in the same category
as some of SCO's requests for discovery.
It is to be hoped that following such grossly abusive behavior by so called
'officers of the court' the US justice system will rein in the powers of
lawyers to throw around subpoenas and ensure that 'third parties' receiving
them are properly reimbursed for their time, costs and expenses (with the
issuing party having to post a sizable bond). Probably too much to hope for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sorry - Authored by: PM on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:52 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 06:56 AM EST |
| god, i'd pay money to see rms's deposition.
btw, it appears darl mcbride has a cousin in the space
"industry."
the rest of the world is going to start wondering if america
puts crack in its water. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:20 AM EST |
IANAL but I know that somebody in a civil law suit is not supposed to file any
old subpoena merely to harass somebody or place an undue burden on them, etc.
Motions can be filed to quash subpoenas. The court has the right to quash or
modify subpoenas. The subpoenaed parties can make objections. If the subpoena is
fought, then it the party wanting to do the subpoenaing can have to justify it
to the court, etc., etc. So in the end, the court decides what's reasonable.
Of course, you want the court to hear your side of the story, before deciding,
which is why it's a good idea to get a lawyer's advice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:49 AM EST |
I love this. Torvalds and Stallman are both smart and sarcastic. SCO is paying
for the priviledge of being called idiots by both of these men.
I agree this is just a stock prop stunt. They're probably hoping for another
DoS attack too (if they don't fake one themselves).
The dress code at SCO is ties and parachutes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:17 AM EST |
The IBM questions for RMS and LT should open up some very interesting facets of
Unix history. AT&T vs BSD, POSIX standards, BSD code in SysV, LKP questions,
UNIX source in public domain, Caldera Linux history and more that SCO hoped
would never be considered by the court.
SCO doesn't really want these two standard bearers of Open Source to set the
court straight, which IBM will surely make happen.
Open Source is the life blood of these two men, they live and beleive it. They
will both be well prepared and be SCO's worst nightmare come to life.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:08 PM EST |
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/2003/11/13/cz_dl_1113sco.html
"In addition to Torvalds and Stallman, SCO told the U.S. District Court in
Utah it would issue subpoenas to Transmeta (nasdaq: TMTA - news - people ), a
chip-design company that employs Torvalds; the Open Source Development Lab,
where Torvalds currently works, on leave from Transmeta; software maker Novell
(nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ); and Digeo, maker of Linux-based TV set-top
boxes."
diego is the other subpoena
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sarsen on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:34 PM EST |
Hmmm, looks like a good analysis. SCOX is up $0.78, S&P and DJIA down a
quater percent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: piskozub on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:08 PM EST |
I wonder if Linus could get his legal costs paid from the "Open Source Now"
legal fund RedHat established back in August for "to cover legal expenses
associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing
software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the
efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license".
See
the original
RedHat press release[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Why have they sent a subpoena to Richard Stallman?
As far as I know he has never been involved in Linux Kernel development in his
life, and certainly not in the 2.4 or 2.6 kernels - (Or has he? Please tell me
if otherwise)...
What information could SCO possibly want from him?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:56 PM EST |
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:01 PM EST |
In a new Forbes article:
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/2003/11/13/cz_dl_1113sco.html
Doesn't sound at all like Lyons! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:38 PM EST |
We all expect that Linus Torvalds and Bruce Perens would make formidable UNIX
code expert witnesses on IBM's behalf, and the SCO Group knows it. I don't
know if the SCO Group subpoenas are aimed at getting them to make statements
that would dent their credibility as expert witnesses - For us to know the
contents of said subpoenas so that we can deconstruct them would be a big help
in deciphering the SCO Group's intentions. I expected the SCO Group to do its
level best to keep the OSS UNIX code experts out of court, but its subpoenas
practically guarantee that they'll be there doing their part to put some nails
in the SCO Group's coffin.
As for Richard Stallman, the SCO Group is probably trying to get him to make
anti-copyrights statements so that they can argue that the GPL was intended to
violate US Copyrights laws - the GPL is of course designed to piggyback on the
existing US Copyrights law, so Stallman's views (and mine) on the US Copyrights
law is irrelevant. For example, you may hate the speed limit laws but as long as
you comply with them, your views on them are irrelevant. Again, a chance to read
Richard Stallman's subpoena should give us more than a few clues.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:44 PM EST |
I'm assuming this is the kind of subpoena where he has to personally come to
court.
I understand the PR value of say, "We're calling Linus to
justice..." for SCO, but look at it the other way.
You are basically creating a partial US tour of your most famous adversary
(symbolically, I mean. Linus is not a party to the case). If Linus HAS to
travel to the US, I'm sure he'll recieve lots of invitations by universities,
etc.. and along with that a lot of Linus/Linux specific GOOD PRESS!
Not smart SCO. And I don't even have a marketing degree...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:52 PM EST |
Oh Hell, I didn't get my Subpoena, I was Robbed.
I know what to do if I do though.
My lawyer will file a $672,000,000,000.00 (672 Trillion)
Lawsuit for Fraud and a Dozen other "Goodies" against
SCO and Bury them in so much legal turmoil, they will
wish they were never born.
Inventor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:49 PM EST |
Many folks have wondered about the connection of involving RMS, including
myself. If I were an attorney for SCO, one of the main interests I would have
in RMS and the GNU organization as it relates to this case is that of the GNU
kernel project, the HURD.
The Linux kernels have exceeded by leaps and bounds the progress of the HURD (no
offense intended to those involved with the project, I actually wish I could
contribute more). Since this case revolves around the amazing progress of Linux
and SCO's claim that Linux could never have progressed this quickly without the
help of IBM, a comparison in the courts against another open source kernel
project would be valuable. It would be an attempt to show that open source
cannot compete (Yes, I know the technical differences and difficulties between
the two kernels, but I doubt SCO would hesitate to obfuscate, downplay or ignore
this).
Just a theory, but so far the best that I could think of for issuing a subpeona
to a man who claims no association with the Linux kernel.
mlynx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:56 PM EST |
Imagine Linus giving the complete CVS tree (2.4 and 2.6) to SCO, in much the
same way they dumped the printouts to IBM. That'll be cool.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 11:48 PM EST |
| Put him on right after Stallman.. ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: piskozub on Friday, November 14 2003 @ 02:29 AM EST |
A snippet:
"The Open Source Development Lab will pay its law firm to
represent Linus Torvalds"
Read the rest here[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, November 14 2003 @ 07:13 PM EST |
http://tinyurl.com/v2j4
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
