|
|
| Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" |
 |
|
Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:06 PM EST
|
It looks like the financial community is finally noticing that the judge took IBM's side in the Motion to Compel arguments on December 5th. It is affecting at least some of them, judging from this article, entitled "Now is the winter of SCO discontent" on Vnunet, in which the chief analyst at Ovum expresses this gloomy view of SCO: "Ten days ago, in its breach of contract dispute with IBM, a US judge ordered SCO to produce its evidence of Big Blue's alleged placement of SCO code into Linux. . . .
"Gary Barnett, principal analyst at Ovum, commented: 'The legal decision to compel SCO to detail any infringing code is significant and proves it hasn't done a good job.'
"He also thought it unlikely SCO would now sue a big Linux user enterprise. The judge in any such case would probably rule it should wait until after ownership of the code had been proved.
"But SCO has vowed to press on. 'The Linux end-user lawsuits will hinge on much more than our case against IBM,' said Stowell. 'These are preliminary hearings. The case won't come to court until April 11, 2005. I would hardly jump to any conclusions based on the outcome of a preliminary hearing.'"
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST |
From the vnunet article,
"In October, RBC and investment company BayStar Capital Partners pumped
$50m into the law firm, partly to cover the litigation costs."
'Law firm'? Maybe they know more than what appears to the eye?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:28 PM EST |
| The markets haven't noticed. SCOX still trading at $16, as of noon Dec. 15. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:34 PM EST |
It won't come to trial by then, either. Stowell really needs to try keep up
with this case.
Have they ever offered any evidence to indicate that the code I'm running
infringes on any of their property?
Spin it, brother.
Meanwhile, Michael Miller, from PC Magazine suggested to me, (I sent him a rant
about SCO), that Darl's last open letter had gotten his attention, in a
less-than-favorable way. So the press all over may finally be starting to
notice.
When and if you find SCO related articles and editorials on-line that give you
the option to give feed back, do that and point the editors to Groklaw, at
least. Maybe we can bury SCO Group with the truth. (It might work; it's
happened before.)
TFL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:39 PM EST |
| The principle analyst at Ovum must a master of understatement [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmcgill on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:50 PM EST |
Using the Richard III quote as the headline, says the opposite of what I think
the author meant. At least I hope so.
"Now is the winter of our discontent turned glorious summer..."
Richard is saying that things are getting better. He's not saying "Right
now begins our stuggle." He is saying "our struggle has ended,
thanks to me."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:52 PM EST |
Ovum was telling us "ignore SCO" When Didio and Weiss were spouting
off things like
"it won't hurt for you to call SCOG and discuss your
infrastructure."
(yes, that's EXACTLY what Weiss wrote earlier, Discuss your infrastructure with
SCOG. Give a belligerent, extorting, lying organization confidential
information about you IT infrastructure.)
Weiss has changed his tune, "don't allow SCOG to know anything unless
they have a search warrant."
But still, Ovum comes out of this smelling FAR rosier than Gartner and Yank-(my
chain)-ee
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brent on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:57 PM EST |
"But SCO has vowed to press on. 'The Linux end-user lawsuits will hinge
on much more than our case against IBM,' said Stowell. 'These are preliminary
hearings. The case won't come to court until April 11, 2005. I would hardly
jump to any conclusions based on the outcome of a preliminary hearing.'"
Is it just me or is SCO sounding more and more like Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf,
Iraqi Minister of Information?
--Brent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mitphd on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:05 PM EST |
The article says:
Earlier this month, chief executive Darl McBride
released the first of a series of letters due in the coming months examining the
issues raised by the SCO case.
He indicated that the GNU general public licence
violated US copyright law and the authority of Congress - raising a torrent of
controversy from lawyers and analysts.
Controverersy? I'm
not aware of any controversy regarding Darl's letter. I've yet to see any
lawyers or analysts who actually agree with it. 'Torrent of ridicule' would be
more accurate. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:18 PM EST |
People at SCOX are sure keen on everyone been aware they expect to keep the ball
rolling at least until April 2005, don't they?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:28 PM EST |
I know it's covered a lot probably by now, but reading it on several sites
(sort of at random) it makes me worry:
SCO received Dynix from IBM. Can anyone give his/her opinion if there is a risk
of SCO finding elements in there to further stall the case or to find actual
infringement?
greetings
Patrick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- is there infringement in Dynix? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:49 PM EST
- Dynix Unix (offtopic, sorry) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 02:23 PM EST
- Dynix Unix (offtopic, sorry) - Authored by: midav on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 02:28 PM EST
- Dynix Unix (offtopic, sorry) - Authored by: Jude on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 02:53 PM EST
- Dynix Unix (offtopic, sorry) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 03:18 PM EST
- Dynix Unix (offtopic, sorry) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:03 PM EST
- Isn't Dynix BSD based? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:39 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:30 PM EST |
| Rob Preston at Network Computing went after Darl and SCO in his column
this week. Interesting comparison of SCO to Walker Digital and how "it seems a
tad shallow to base two-thirds of your company's growth strategy on suing
people--customers, potential customers, other vendors."
---
Quietly
implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:38 PM EST |
For those of you worried about why SCO's stock price is hovering and not going
down: look at the volume of the stock. Nobody is trading it. 68000 shares at
13:37 is no volume. Look at Novell for comparison. This is the kind of situation
you don't want to have if you want to unload the stock. No volume means no one
wants to take it off your hands.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 01:59 PM EST |
You know that thing we decided not to talk about very much in public any more?
Well, it's happening again.
This is very annoying, how can I do the little bit of research
on SCO customer success stories I had planned when some idiot keeps on ruining
the Internet!?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST |
What's going on w/ the stock options? Five directors got
15,000 options apiece at $4.75. Why? They were granted
5/16/2003 and are exercisable 5/16/2004.
Anyone have an explanation? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 02:54 PM EST |
Stowell: "I would hardly jump to any conclusions based on the outcome of a
preliminary hearing."
What SCO doesn't grasp is that "preliminary
hearings" are seruous business. Discovery is the core activity of any civil
case, and has to be taken seriously or you can lose your case without ever
getting to the trial date. This is part of the "day in court" they have been
asking for, and it's time to start producing the evidence they claimed to have. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 03:13 PM EST |
Kevin McBride on December 5, 2003 "And by the way, Your Honor, I will
proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that has
copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the coming few days or
no less than a week."
Today's the 15th, a week has come and gone.
LSS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 03:14 PM EST |
i'm stuck on, "The case won't come to court until April 11,
2005."
2005. why are the courts so slow? this lawsuit is affecting hundreds of
companies around the globe.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 04:10 PM EST |
Almost OT:
This is not a troll. I don't represent SCO, or IBM, or anyone but me.
It has occurred to me that Groklaw can prove a number of things about the open
source community by a simple exercise.
We should attempt, by logic and skill, to prove SCO's case. You may not think
it can be proved, but that's sort of the point: arm SCO with as cogent an
argument as possible. Are we afraid of the truth? I am not.
If the case for SCO owning Linux or AIX or $3G or anything else is valid and
right, then despite what we might want, that's what we should be championing.
On the other hand, if we can show that the strongest case to be made against the
GPL and Linux fails, a stronger precedent will be set.
SCO's lawyers will be assisted by anything we discover. So will IBM's, since
they will have opportunity to refute anything they see here.
Both sides will have to verify everything they see, so they don't miss an
architect's closet. (An architect will sometimes include a false feature such
as a closet or doorway in a design, so that anyone who steals the design without
knowing the secret will run into trouble. It's also sort of a watermark built
in to the design, so the designer can show ownership.)
I think such an exercise, if done with sincerity, would increase Groklaw's
credibility with the SCO-aligned world.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I am a literate citizen)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: hugorune on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 04:36 PM EST
- If you can't see the writing on the wall... - Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 04:41 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 04:54 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: hbo on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:02 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:21 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: Jude on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:25 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 06:13 PM EST
- What is SCO's case? - Authored by: old joe on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 06:15 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 08:39 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 11:17 PM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:20 AM EST
- Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job" - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:33 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 04:16 PM EST |
SCO said after the motion to compel that they expected to lose that one. Now,
since this is just discovery, and not even the trial itself, could their
witholding of the information be considered contempt? They DID NOT EXPECT TO
WIN, therefore, that must mean that they KNEW that they were supposed to supply
those discovery items.
Could that be considered contempt of court - Knowingly denying a lawful
discovery item? I'm interested in comments from smarter people than me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 04:49 PM EST |
PJ, is there anything you can tell us about the posting made on Friday that
claimed SCO has filed an amended complaint, including copyright claims?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbq on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:09 PM EST |
Have heard very little recently. Anyone have any updates?
Kevin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 05:45 PM EST |
Not that it's a HUGE surprise, but, from the page at http://www.sco.com/scosour
ce/linuxlicense.html
Many customers are concerned about
using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an
unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX® operating system. These customers
unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO property and many are running
critical business applications on Linux. Some customers have asked their
Linux distributors to indemnify them against intellectual property infringement
claims in Linux. The Linux distributors are unable to do so because of the terms
and conditions in the General Public License (GPL). (Emphasis
mine.)
Does that last sentence strike you as terribly
inaccurate?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 06:32 PM EST |
| Internetnews.com
has a report.
Colleen Shannon, a senior security researcher at the
Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), said that despite
SCO's claims to the contrary, the attack wasn't a particularly sophisticated
one.
"SCO called this a highly sophisticated attack," she said. "Without
any special configuration, which SCO obviously doesn't have because they were
affected by it a lot, it is a hard attack to defend. But it's really nothing new
and there is technology to defend against it."
The report states that
that many data packets are the equivalent to 20Mbit/second of Internet traffic,
or a DS-3 Internet connection. Carlon, however, said that SCO has a dedicated 45
Mbit/second bandwidth pipe, with backup bandwidth if necessary, so it's unclear
how the attack was able to bring down its servers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 06:34 PM EST |
http://www.nwc.com/showitem.jhtml?docid=1425colpreston
SCO's House of Suits
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 06:51 PM EST |
Noble as your request seems, I don't see the value of it.
a) If SCO really has any proof of their claims, I am not going to help them with
it. If this was stricktly about IBM and SCO, none of us would care about this
at all. However, SCO has launched a broadside against Linux, which we do care
about.
Directly or indirectly, I don't see why SCO should receive any help in their
crusade against all that is good and right.
That said, everything that has come out of Lindon so far has been wafer thin,
and has been dissected and sliced to bits within minutes by people who know
their stuff. Fortunately for Linux, any of the stuff dug up at groklaw has not
been helpful to SCOX.
All this has done, is reveal to SCO that they have no case, something that has
prompted them to press forth with wilder and wilder press releases and legal
strategies crazier than dr evil after a gallon of montain dew. In effect, the
publicx discussion of this case (much helped by SCO's eager press escapades)
means SCOG has painted themselves into a corner with more than enough rope to
hang themselves.
Finding the truth and getting the truth out is groklaw's objective. Being
"neutral" is not an objective, especially when being neutral means
you have to feign 50% support for something that is 80% lies and 20% irrelevant
fluff.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 07:03 PM EST |
Is someone running a denial of service attack on
Gorklaw?
I found it almost impossible to get Gorklaw to
come up tonight. It took half a dozen tries and
30 minutes. That is not normal. Usually it is
immediate.
I had the same problem Saturday for about 2
hours too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stephan Schulz on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 10:04 PM EST |
| SCO's stock behaved really funny today (Dec. 15th). it started at 16.46, then
slowly dropped to 15.5, then, at 3.30 suddenly dropped down to 15.0, and in the
last half hour or so slowly regained value until trading stopped at 15.50. See
Yahoo
Finance.
What caught my attention are the bid and ask fields: Bidding is
0.01 x 100, asking is 9,000.00 x 100. Are these actually the last offers, or is
it an artefact? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 11:26 PM EST |
| OK,maybe this is old hat for some of you, but I got a grin out of this:
http://www.scocountdown.com/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 15 2003 @ 11:47 PM EST |
More Stowell quotes about the attack, about ESR, and IBM's
"infringing" contributions, and that the only offending
contributions are by SGI and IBM
http://www.avnonline.com/issues/200312/newsarchive/news_121503_4.shtml[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:45 AM EST |
maybe this has been gone over before...but SCO says it plans to push forward in
its lawsuits against linux end users regardless of the proceedings in the IBM
case...
Now i understand that the IBM case is mainly a contract dispute with IBM but it
would seem that the basis for suing end users (basically saying "you're
using something that contains our IP without our consent so we demand you
compensate us") is, in the end, also the point of the IBM lawsuit.
they're saying IBM broke contract agreements by putting parts of SCOs Unix code
into Linux and distributed it...is that right? and that also forms the basis of
their licensing scheme (or shake-down scheme, however you want to look at it)
but since they haven't proven that what they claim is actually true...how can
they pursue lawsuits against anyone when the truth of their claims is still
being examined?
why would anyone be stupid enough to actually give them money over something
like that? "yeah, uh, we say that you're using something that has our IP
in it but we haven't proven any of our claims, but we want your money
anyways"
i don't know, is their intention just to hope that people will attempt to avoid
litigation and just pay them the money? but if someone actually went to court
with them over it, how does that mesh with the IBM case? cuz in the end, don't
they end up having to prove the same thing they have to prove in the IBM case?
maybe i'm just making this more complicated to myself but the whole idea of
suing someone without backing up their claims first boggles my mind. it's like
me claiming windows contains code that is mine and is being used without my
permission, and then sending every windows user an invoice for $300 in order to
continue using windows or i'll sue them. it's just crazy *boggle*[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- changing tunes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 03:04 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 02:56 AM EST |
"When the SCO Group finally lays its cards on the table in its upcoming
lawsuit against IBM, the open source community won't be given the opportunity to
see them."
Read more on ZD
Net
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:41 AM EST |
Ok, IANAL.. but isn't a preliminary hearing something you have in a
<I>criminal</I> case?
Seems they might be watching too much TV..
OTOH.. literally, it's a preliminary hearing, as it was a hearing, and it was
before the actual trial..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
