|
Update on the Subpoenas; and The Public Interest in a Free, Open Source OS |
|
Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 12:28 AM EST
|
Just a quick update on the subpoenas. Linus' is for documents, not for him to be deposed, according to OSDL. And Richard Stallman tells me that so far he has yet to receive one. As for Linus, there is this official word from OSDL's web site: "November 14, 2003 - The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a global consortium of leading technology companies dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Linux, today confirmed that both OSDL and Linux creator Linus Torvalds had received subpoenas on Wednesday from attorneys for The SCO Group. The subpoenas were issued in The SCO Group's pending litigation with IBM. The subpoenas request that OSDL and Torvalds produce documents for use in that dispute.
"OSDL has agreed to fund legal representation for Torvalds and any other employees of the Lab who may become involved in the litigation.
"OSDL is represented by AterWynne LLP." So, OSDL will pay for Linus' attorney, whatever firm he eventually chooses to retain. The fact that they are asking for documents only doesn't mean they will never seek to depose Linus; it just means that those of you booking flights in your dream world to get to watch Linus and rms being deposed can stop daydreaming. It may happen down the road, but it doesn't look like it'll be now.
Anyway, not to burst any bubbles, but depositions are not generally open to the public. They usually happen in some attorney's office, not in a courtroom. That part comes later, and if it does, I'd pay to watch that myself. Linux and the Public Interest Anupam Chander, Visiting Professor at Cornell Law School and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, has another groundbreaking article on GNU/Linux and SCO on Findlaw. He is calling on U.S. legislators to step in and demand that SCO show its basis for its claims and protect the public interest in having a free and open source operating system. He says that while it is a good thing both IBM and Red Hat are fighting back in court, the public interest in the matter is so great that it should be protected by governmental intervention: ". . . it is in the public interest that Linux remain free. Increasingly, governments and companies are adopting Linux as the operating system on personal computers. (The city of Munich, Germany is one example.)
"Moreover, Linux is already popular among the computers that power the Internet; it represents a significant share of the market for computer servers. If running these servers requires paying SCO royalties, then cyberspace will suddenly become a lot more costly.
"But, to protect the government and the Internet's ability to rely on Linux, it's not enough that SCO's claims -- and the claims of IBM and Red Hat -- be fought out in court.
"Instead, it's time for U.S. authorities to intervene to force SCO to disclose the basis for its claim to own Linux -- so we can all see if that claim is bogus (as seems very likely) or legitimate.
"SCO's threats to sue are no longer just private disputes. They have become a matter of intense public interest. They threaten the ability of any and all of us to have access to a free, open source operating system. They threaten the very servers that support the Internet, and the computer systems that support governments and companies. It's time to make SCO show its cards, or fold its hand." He points out that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to call SCO to account for its claims. So do state attorneys general and he particularly mentions New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, CA's Bill Lockyer, and Roy Cooper of North Carolina as possibilitites to lead an investigation: "And in examining these claims, the FTC and attorneys general should draw upon the community of programmers worldwide, who offer an amazing brain trust of public interested experts." I knew you'd like that part.
|
|
Authored by: Alex on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 01:29 AM EST |
Documents only. That's one heck of a fishing expedition. What do they expect to
find? What SCO is missing is that Linux didn't even have to know if IBM was
stealing code.
Alex
---
Destroying SCO one bozon at a time[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 01:35 AM EST |
It seems things are starting to pick up. If enough of the
public (from various areas) step up and request something
done about SCO's claims, the government is going to
have to listen and start taking action. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 01:36 AM EST |
Fantastic! Now you serving up double scoops! You keep hope
alive! And hopefully, inspire fear in The SCO Group. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 01:42 AM EST |
I would think that Eliot Spitzer, with all the other high profile stock
manipulation/insider trading investigations ongoing, would jump at the
chance to help a home state company in a battle against a company that
appears to be running a pump & dump scheme.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hairball on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 02:01 AM EST |
Now it gets interesting.
The SCOvaders are raiding the village so to speak, with the intention not of
establishing a relationship with its occupants but to try to rob the store.
When the store turned out to be much harder to rob than they anticipated they
extended their actions to kill or injure as many of the local population as
possible in an attempt to scare them into submission.
The SCOvaders attacked with legal weapons because the defense against such
weapons is not normally somthing that villagers have access to. It is a form of
magick and the villagers did not understand magick at the time.
The defense against magick is to know magick - to learn its strengths and
weaknesses.
What fascinates me here is the speed with which the villagers have learned about
this magick.
grokmagick^H^H^H^H^H^Hlaw is an example of the way the village is reorganizing
to meet the threat of the SCOvader.
I would be a little concerned if I was another invader preparing to attack. The
village will be far better prepared that it was before (the village may not have
many grand wizards but it has a hell of a lot of lay wizards ready to funnel the
information past what grand wizards we have). The SCOvaders have succeded in
innoculating the village population.
When this fiasco began I was very concerned - I did not know much about the law
and as such I was unable to evaluate the threat. I am in a much better position
to evaluate the threat now. The SCOvaders weapons are nowhere near as scary as
when they first attacked and now it seems the Magick Supoenas of the SCOvaders
are in fact the lesser plastic coated versions not to be used in daylight and
then only against pets and small children (the nuclear powered auto homing
versions used by the village store would worry me though).
This will be a long drawn out fight against the SCOvader. They are not going to
go away even if they lose, however the next lesser brained CEO to attack the
village may find a completely different population at home.
Cheers,
Hairball Lightspeed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 02:09 AM EST |
How has this case opened up your eyes to the LACK of teeth the SEC has? That
the FTC has? Or the lack of honesty of analysts? I mean, we suspected they
were biased before, and twisted the truth, but this is basically absolute proof
that they don't even do the most minimal due diligence and they verify absolute
no facts at all. How could Enderle seem more incompetent than when he's
on record claiming that SCO has a 55-65% chance of
winning?
This entire thing has been valuable to everybody. It's
exposed the analysts as being in collusion, it's demonstrated that Microsoft
really will go to any lengths to try to kill Linux. It proves
that the FTC and the SEC do not police the stock market. Isn't that important
to you to know? It's more than important, it's essential and it's all on record
because of SCO. Verifiable proof for the common man, at last, all because of
SCO.
I think it's a very bad idea for the government to take action for a
very simple reason - it gives people a false sense of security. When this
next happens, and it will, people will point back and say "this
can't be the same as the SCO fiasco, because the government is doing nothing at
all about it - this is different." SCO will get their's, and it doesn't need
some fat ass useless beauracrat that can only find his ass because he has 14
aids to help him do it.
Besides, there are more important people to put into
jail. Can you say Enron or Worldcom? How's Ken Lay doing these days? Has
Bernie Ebers returned all the money he stole yet? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 03:20 AM EST |
They've been talking about suing end-users for months and months. Have they
sued any yet?
There are three possible explanations
(a) They will sue end-users
(b) It's hype. They will NOT sue end-users
And the one everybody is forgetting:
(c) They will try and get a bunch of users added as additional parties to the
IBM lawsuit
(I can't see any logic to this under the current circumstances, but that
doesn't mean I don't think they will try)
IMHO I personally think (c) is likeliest:
- SCO only wants to sue IBM
- When SCO talked about and hyped suing another unnamed vendor
("IHV") in their words, for a while. Who did it turn out to be?
Answer: An IBM subsiduary
- It doesn't look like the IBM lawsuit is going too well for SCO. If there are
a bunch more parties in the IBM case, it would allow SCO to muddy the waters,
and maybe one of the end-users will get fed up and want to settle this thing.
- SCO have been pressuring and pressuring IBM to indemnify end-users. If IBM
had, I would have thought that might help with SCO's justification of why these
additional parties needed to be involved in the SCO v IBM case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 04:33 AM EST |
will sco have to list specific code they want to know about?
or can they ask for all that IBM donated?
under civil rules i read they have to be specific in the requests only if there
are objections and then the judge decides what is relevant?
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 04:39 AM EST |
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525038048,00.html
enjoy
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: freeio on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 06:01 AM EST |
I suppose that AG Spitzer is most likely to be interested in this, if only
because he seems willing to take on cases that the feds will drag their feet on
forever. He is not beholden to the Bush camp for his position, and thus has no
restraining force to keep him from acting. The man is already taking on Wall
Street in a big way to the point where feds are complaining about his being on
their turf. So inasmuch as this seems to be a stock scam, and is ongoing and
very public, and involves both a big NY corporation and Wall Street investment
houses, he is probably the one on which to focus.
I see no track record for any other state AG to do much. It is not that one or
more won't, but those who haven't in the past are less likely to do so in the
future.
---
73 de w4ti[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 06:30 AM EST |
Posted in wrong place. Please delete/ignore parent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 07:50 AM EST |
Infoworld seems to be digging into the story:
"The list that
I read seemed nonsensical to me," said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky, speaking of
SCO's list of subpoena targets. "The SCO Group has been playing this as a media
event," he said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 08:08 AM EST |
Could it be that the way that SCO is claiming ownership to millions of
lines of code by claiming ownership of the C language?
Could it be that there is a part of the AT&T / IBM contract that deals
with the C code?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maxhrk on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 08:27 AM EST |
hey PJ you better check this out the letter from Novell to SCO: a
href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9724">http://www.theinquirer.net/?a
rticle=9724
or raw manual copy:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9724 (if above dont work that
is.)
--- SCO: Linux... I am your.. father. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jlnance on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 08:30 AM EST |
I live in North Carolina. I would be most willing to write my Att. General and
encourage him to investigate SCO. But I could use some help in knowing exactly
what to say.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 09:23 AM EST |
... I don't think it should be specific to the matter at hand (SCO). I think
it would be more productive to produce law that would prevent this kind of abuse
of our legal system in general.
For example, it might be good to require any plaintiff that alleges infringement
of copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret to specifically and completely
identify the infringing material at the time of filing their lawsuit.
What SCO is doing is outrageous. They're probably going to end up asking the
court for more time to gather materials that they should have had ready when
they filed suit. I personally think this shoud be grounds for dismissing the
entire case with prejudice.
Of course, some allowance would be needed to allow judicial discretion. If a
plaintiff identifies (for example) 10 specific infringements at the outset but
subsequently discovers a few more, it is probably reasonable to allow them to be
included in the ongoing case.
Filing an entire lawsuit with nothing to support it is plain, outright, obvious
abuse that should be prevented.
Just my opinion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 11:09 AM EST |
I would think Massachusetts would be the leading candidate for a state attorney
general to go after SCO since they're standing alone against Microsoft in the
antitrust trial at the same time they're adopting a pro-open source policy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mass AG - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 11:44 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 01:36 PM EST |
Apologies for the slightly Off-Topic post but it could be an interesting
scenario.
I don't think anyone else has posted this here
yet:
IBM to buy
Novell?
Maybe someone who can read Spanish could provide the jist
of what's being said in the original article.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 06:26 PM EST |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12689
Unconfirmed report
"A REPORT ON COLOMBIAN site Evaluamos claims that IBM may buy Novell
within a month."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 06:54 PM EST |
Red Hat, SUSE Announce Educational
Discounts:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/15/1958205&mode=thre
ad&tid=106&tid=146&tid=185&tid=99
IBM Releases Desktop
Linux
Presentation:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/15/2244214&mode=t
hread&tid=106&tid=136&tid=185&tid=187
Mr. Bill probably
won't appreciate this. Perhaps SCO prodding IBM wasn't such a great idea:
Sleeping dogs and all that...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 09:07 PM EST |
Hmmm! Maybe I should buy shares in ODSL, their share price, if listed, is sure
to skyrocket :^)
Thank you SCO!
---
JJJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 15 2003 @ 11:06 PM EST |
Linus, send SCO the CVS tree of all the versions, from 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, ....,
2.5, 2.5.1, etc.
BTW, my son's name is Linus, but he is puny in size (smallest guy in class)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, November 16 2003 @ 08:47 AM EST |
Linux lab hires
lawyers for Torvalds
"OSDL has agreed to fund
legal representation for Torvalds and any other employees of the lab who may
become involved in the litigation," the consortium said in a statement it
planned to release on Friday.
If / when SCO's suit is
proven to be frivolous and thrown out, how likely is it that OSDL will file a
countersuit to recover legal costs? (Should they in fact file it now so as to
get in line to recover before the vultures pick over the carcass?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:15 AM EST |
It's a strange friend to have a republican gov't supporting Linux 'in the
public interest'. The plea makes sense but what it there is another DOJ
fiasco.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|