Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:48 PM EST |
Can we not all say we're not suprised. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire => Stowell [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
read between the words [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ted Powell on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST |
What, again?
--- Truth is not determined by majority vote. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST |
This has to be the 5th or 6th time SCO has made claims like this to the press,
over the past year.
Suggested project: Let's make a list of all the times they've said this!
It might help make it ultra-obvious to journalists that what SCO says and what
SCO does are...usually not the same thing...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nattt on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:52 PM EST |
By threatening to sue, then holding off, it just makes it look more like stock
manipulation than SCO actually wanting to go to court to prove their claims. I
think they know their claims will not stand up in court, hence this
"threaten"
tactic. They begin to sound more like the RIAA every day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST |
I'm quaking in my boots lest Darl says "Nee!" again...
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST |
"SCO's Stowell also expressed surprise at the mention of Lehman Brothers as a
potential target for its legal action. 'This is the very first time I have heard
its name brought up by anyone or run by me or anyone at SCO.'"
This is
so... pathetic.
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't want
to watch, but I can't stop myself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:55 PM EST |
From the article.
"Unix code to which SCO now owns the rights."
Man, details, details, details. What do they say, its all in the details?
I'm at work now, and can't get to my personal accnt, someone click the feedback
button and correct they guys.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST |
Little Darl Hood: A Play
Darl: Wolf!
Townspeople: What!?!?
Darl: Wolf!
Townspeople: Where?
Darl: Wolf!
Townspeople: WTF? I don't see it, do you?
Darl: Wolf!
Townspeople: Oh Jesus, not again.
Darl Wolf!
Townspeople: Did you hear that?
Townspeople: Hear what?
Darl: Wolf!
Townspeople: Oh, that. That's just the town idiot. He's been saying that for
months. Almost a year, in fact. We all sorta tune him out now.
Darl: Wolf!
Darl: Wolf!
Darl: Wolf!
(Enter Stage Right, Wolf. Attacks Darl, mangles corpse, feed on entrails. Gets
sick in corner. Exeunt, Stage Left.)
(Next morning)
Townspeople: Hear that?
Townspeople: What?
Townspeople: Something's missing.
(Pause)
Townspeople: Hear that?
Townspeople: What?
Townspeople: Exactly.
(Sighs of relief all around.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sbungay on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST |
Amazing isn't it?
If Linux was the Brooklyn Bridge and SCO was tryiong to charge for it's use they
would be in jail by now for fraud.
---
The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there
are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting.
Sun-tzu, The A[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST
|
Authored by: Thomas An. on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST |
This is a general quriocity of mine (not necessarily in context of the current
thread).
What does it *realy* mean to file for bankruptcy ?
Is it just about selling the office furniture and going home ?
Is it just having the credit organizations put the business name on the watch
list ?
Is that all ?
Is there anything actually devastating about bankruptcy ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST |
When is some court, *any* court, going to put an end to this circus? Enough
Already! How much damage to the economy must one pipsqueak company do before
some judge gets the lead out, takes charge of the situation, and starts
directing this to some kind of resolution? I simply cannot believe that Boies
and his firm is so incredibly clever that they can manipulate all these
situations like this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:06 PM EST |
Try it. Send me a bill guys. I've been asking for months now. Of course I'll
hand it over to the AG's office here and you will most likely find yourselves
guests of the Texas Department of Corrections.
Don't you idiots at SCO realize that McBride has taken you on a one way ego trip
to the poorhouse?
Thank God the SEC is starting... starting to wake up to this BS. Also too bad
McBride & I couldn't settle this in a dojo somewhere. By the way Darl,
Kyojitsu tenkan no myohe, Nihongo no omae. Assuming you understand Kanto dialect
you'll understand.
SCO 10 months ago... Lawsuits are Coming.
SCO 06 months ago... Lawsuits are Coming... Really....
SCO 01 month ago... Really We're Suing....
SCO Today... Lawsuits are Coming... Really....
Yawn,
Nick
PS: Darl, learn about being a real businesman son, then come talk to me.
---
Not an Attorney.
Views expressed are my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my
employer or its affiliates. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO will do nothing.... - Authored by: dave booth on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:24 PM EST
- Nick - Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:03 PM EST
- Re: Nick - Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:52 PM EST
- Re: Nick - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 06:43 AM EST
- SCO will do nothing.... - Authored by: lifewish on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:10 PM EST
- SCO will do nothing.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:05 PM EST
- You want a bill? - Authored by: grahamt on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST
- You want a bill? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
- Personally... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST
- SCO will do nothing.... - Authored by: trevorteusc on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:31 PM EST
- SCO will do nothing.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:22 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST |
"An open source industry group has filed a new complaint to the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission against controversial software company the
SCO Group, saying the vendor is attempting to alter previously granted
licenses."
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39116222,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:14 PM EST |
Ahhh they are going to sue someone....
Oh no....
The day in court (in the far distant future in an alternate universe.....):
Plaintif: We are sueing X because they are infringing on our IP.....
Defendant: Erm what ip how about we put this off till the Novell case settles
it's your IP then the IBM case settles that it's actully in the Linux Kernel oh
btw until then i'm using the kernel you provided on your site under the GPL.
Judge: Case postponed till 22XX when the IBM case will finally be over or SCO is
rotting in hell what ever comes first ;)
Okay maybe if i was the judge ;)
sigh i love reading about this stuff but man cant SCO just step upto the plate
for once and either get it over w/ or fold already =).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rand on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:14 PM EST |
Don't they usually say that to get us to stay around to watch the closing
credits?
"We are not stating yet when that may take place
or with whom it may take place, but you may see something from us
in the near future on this," Ya gotta admire the
masters. All together now:
Wea-SEL, wea-SEL, wea-SEL,
wea-SEL...--- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so
on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
I believe the term for threatening to sue without following through is called
"Barristry". It's actually illegal. Their letter seems to be carefully
worded, but if they're not careful, SCO can be sued for...not suing. Ironic,
isn't it?
I really want them to sue a customer. Besides wasting yet more of their
resources on lawsuits, they will have to take the copyright portion of their
unproven claims into court finally. Remember, there are no copyright claims in
any case currently related to the Linux code. The only one that SCO brought was
against IBM for using AIX even through it was "revoked".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
This is how they're going to try to keep the masses using commercial software:
If there is no compelling technical reason to use it, they will add a new
reason: protection. If you use OSS, "all the burden is on your
shoulders." In other words, they want to make it de-facto illegal not to
run closed software by targeting those who don't with litigation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
"Speculation about the possible Linux user to be sued took another turn
this week following a filing by open source and Linux vendor Red Hat Inc. to
supplement the record in its case against SCO. That filing was first reported on
the Groklaw Web site."
In case the rest of you missed it, congrats to PJ and to the Groklaw community
for being recognized as the source that scooped the story on RH's supplemental
filing!
---
"Every time I think I've heard it all from SCO, they come
up with a new howler." Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:17 PM EST |
"SCO's Stowell also expressed surprise at the mention of Lehman Brothers as
a potential target for its legal action. 'This is the very first time I have
heard its name brought up by anyone or run by me or anyone at
SCO.'"
Blake, do you think we're all stupid? This is a blatant lie.
There is no other way to describe it. I'm utterly astonished to see such brazen
deceitfulness from an officer of a public company. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
Your statement directly contradicts what your division of SCO
wrote in letters to Lehman Brothers. Are you trying to say that your company
decided to threaten, in writing, to sue Lehman Brothers for crying out
loud, and "nobody ran it by you"?
Not credible. Not even remotely credible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sef on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:17 PM EST |
Isn't it a crime to threaten legal action but not do so? I realize it's hard
to prove a lot of the time, but if there's a pattern of behaviour (such as, oh,
sending out a thousand letters and then publicly saying you'd not intended to
follow through on some of them) it's got to be easier, doesn't it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: coffee17 on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:19 PM EST |
The letter to Lehman said:
If you fail to respond to our efforts
to pursue a licensing arrangement, WE WILL ...
However, remember
that Lehman did respond. Granted, they didn't respond favorably; instead
telling TSG to deal with Redhat, and failing that Lehman's lawyers, but Lehman
did respond.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST |
So we caught Darl lying.
What else is new?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST |
It has been about two weeks since the last hearing in Utah. Any word from the
Judge? Did I miss it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:26 PM EST |
This combined with all of the other usless drivel that SCO and croonies have
prodeuced makes me want to call the switchboard at SCO and ask if there is any
executive there that is not wearing a canvas evening jacket.
I'm sure anybody that has followed any part of this fiasco questions the sainity
of the people at SCO behind this mess.
The justice system needs to stop sitting on their hands and do something to stop
SCO's damage to the linux based ecomony.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST |
This is just too precious. So SCO pulled the pins on several grenades and lobbed
them over the fence. Never mind that they've all been thrown back into their
yard; with Lehman, the pin is away and the grenade is still clenched between
SCO's teeth. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ericl on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST |
Remember, this is not about "rights" or "IP" or anything
that high minded--it's about making money. Simple cost benefit shows that hiring
a lawyer at $500+/hr to obtain a $700 license makes no sense, especially knowing
the way lawyers bill. The three licenses they claim to have sold so far, I'm
sure, cost them a lot more than the amount of time and money they put into it.
When hell freezes over, and it looks like they have even a remote chance of
winning anything in this case, then they may reconsider, if they think they can
pull off this extortion scam/spam.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST |
Well now, what a surprise that was. SCO is essentially backing off their front
against end-users of Linux, probably because they know that losing what little
credebility they have is better than walking in to court to be torpedoed on Day
1 because they don't have clear rights to bring a copyright infringement case
over the "ABI Code"?
And elsewhere, what happened to the pool of 6000 UNIX licensees they were
threatening? You would expect that many of them also dabble in or use Linux and
would be unable to comply with the audit request SCO sent out. Perhaps they are
re-thinking their strategy there as well?
Maybe they're evaluating their oh-so-similar sister the RIAA and the suit
brought by one of their targets alledging RICO violations for their tactics. You
know, making lots of threats, suing people with their gigantic nuclear legal
guns to scare the hell out of everyone and frighten the target of the suit into
settling for thousands of dollars rather than fight a seemingly endless army of
lawyers and money in court? Hmmm.....
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
If Martha Stewart can be prosecuted just for saying there is no truth to
allegations made against her on the basis she was lying to prop up her
corporation's stock value, I can't figure out how SCO can contnue to make these
statements without any adverse reactions from the SEC or AG?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: star-dot-h on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
Slightly OT but can anyone tell me whether the constant changes to SCOs SEC
filings are legit? Some of the risks that are appearing there in the most recent
filings have been known about for months - even when share prices rose to the
giddy highs of $20.
So, if those risks were known then, why were investors not informed about them -
if firms can alter filings in such a radical way when information has been
appearent for some time what is the point of that process?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST |
They have to back off now, as if they go after Lehman then they've shot
themselves in one of their other feet in regards to the Red Hat lawsuit.
What's fascinating is that *if* Lehman was a target, Red Hat may have just
coopted it.
Red Hat's new indemnification program should work like this:
If you use Red Hat Linux and get a letter from The Darl, fax it to Red Hat and
they'll file an amended complaint and mention it. SCO will then be forced to
back off so as not to set themselves up for a Red Hat victory and voila!
Indemnification!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST |
Isn't it about time one of the judges returned and slapped some sort of gagging
order on thse clowns?
The current situation appears to make a mockery of both the IT and Legal
professions. It makes something far worse of managers.
Oh well I'm sure this message is just preaching to the choir, I just hope that
at the end of all this the SCO executives end up personally liable and out of
any position of trust or influence for ever.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 09:24 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST |
Sorry, but this is really starting to stink... Published letters to a
"customer" (Lehman), but they have not heard of same letters? SCO
must think the whole world is populated with illiterate fools who are just
begging to give them money for no reason.
This has gone way beyond the Theater of the Absurd.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lpletch on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST |
How many times?
Aint gonna happen.
SCO wanted someone (IBM) to buy them out of their misery. That didn't happen so
now they have fallen into a pit of quicksand. Every move they make is
counterproductive and they keep sinking deeper and deeper. They are squirming
now. The more they squirm the worse off they are. SCO is in the process of a
slow miserable death.
Hey Darl, take a deep breath and lie still, you might stay afloat and SCO May
Sue in Near Future.
Aint gonna happen.
---
lpletch@adelphia.net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST |
Here in Germany , when somebody declares that someone has
violated his copyrights and cannot proof it,it is considered as an attempt of
betrayal and the person who does this it is a criminal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:02 PM EST |
"If you fail to respond to our efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement,
WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL
ACTION."
Lehman Brothers responded ... which lets SCO off the hook. Lehman's response
was "talk to Red Hat", but technically that was a response. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ilssear on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST |
For what I know, they have so much confidence on their long term strategy that
they keep
dumping stock.
BTW, nice timing! exactly 2 days before the hearing... how's that for "planned
sale"? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:10 PM EST |
(/start "really nerdy voice")
Blake Stickswell: "Someone's gonna be in
big trouble! Y-ya-you just watch!"
(/end "really nerdy voice") [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:23 PM EST |
This article in ZDNet is one of the most balanced discussions
I have seen in the tech press on the SCO mess. The writer, David Berlin,
summarizes the set of cases this way.
Right now, the easiest way to get
your head around this very complicated case is to frame it with two primary
vectors. Both will probably come down to interpretation. It's about whether SCO
owns it, to what it extent it owns it and, if it has some or all of the
ownership, just what exactly it is entitled to.
In the first vector, SCO
must get a judge to agree with four core beliefs: (1) what is Unix, (2) how much
of that intellectual property is owned or controlled by SCO, (3) whether by
virtue of the answers to 1 and 2, certain Unix licensees must answer to SCO in
terms of fulfilling their contractual obligations, and (4) what those
obligations are and, by being party to the development of Linux, were certain
licensees in breach of those obligations. SCO's claims on all four fronts are
being contested.
In the second vector, SCO must again get a judge to agree
on what Unix is and how much of it is owned or controlled by SCO. But, whereas
the first vector involves Unix licensees and their obligations, this vector
involves any party -- licensee or not -- that may have misappropriated what is
owned or controlled by SCO and contributed it to Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST |
Now I'm no SCO fan, and while the company does seem to have a habit of being...
shall we say "less than rigorous" with the truth, Stowell may be
honest about this one. SCO's sent out a lot of letters to a lot of people
threatening to sue them, and I find it unlikely that Stowell would have
reviewed, much less rememberd the name of every single one of them. Remember, he
only says that HE hasn't heard about it before.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST |
Hmmmmm. According to my knowledge and belief, no one in the history of law has
been better prepared to be sued than users and developers in the Linux
Community. Never.
Groklawyers are everywhere, with millions of eyes, millions of ears and hands,
listening and turning over every stone. Go ahead TSG. Make my day!
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO, {;)}
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST |
You are completely miss-interpreting Mr. Stowell.
Darl and Blake ("we") will take a coat and matching pants
("suit") and hold it "against" someone who is smoking the
very last part of a cigarette ("end user".) The will then abrade the
clothes with a metal rasp ("file.")
Thus, "We will file suit against an end user."
What's not to understand?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST |
Didn't Hitler start to fight on several fronts at the same time, too?
The question now, SCO must be very sure to get a sizeable amount of cash rather
soon. Otherwise they couldn't or wouldn't dare to start even more costly legal
attacks.
Who will "buy a license" or "invest" now?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Several fronts - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST |
Seems to me that, until this is all settled, it's not too wise to let Linux
vendors use your name on their web site: "Customers including Credit Suisse
First Boston and Lehman Brothers have seen impressive gains." - How else
is SCO going to know who uses Linux unless you'all run around and brag about it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST |
I quote from the article:
copyrighted Unix code to which SCO now owns the rights.
Shouldn't that be Sco that allegedly owns the rights? After all, Novell is
under the impression that they, not SCO own the copyrights to Unix.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Turing_Machine on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:24 PM EST |
I've been watching the proceedings here and, I must admit, the sheer volume of
information here can be information overload, if you haven't had time to digest
the documents and statements as they have occurred. That being said, I can
honestly say that I have never really thought about how dis-associated the stock
market is from reality before today. I have always assumed that there was a
reason for valuation of a company, its future, etc., that was privy to a very
select few, and people like myself pay commissions and fund fees to have someone
with that knowledge direct our financial futures.
This could not be further from the truth. There is a mysterious nature to the
stock markets, but it has much less to do with valuable knowledge about the
product than I ever imagined.
Why again do people pay for this?
Darl is truly a master of that mysterious effect that drives stock price. Here
is the proverbial snake oil company, shown to be a fraud and full of nothing but
bluster, yet the stock prices remain at a level that would make Ponzi himself
blush.
</rant>
---
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a
mediocre brain, something like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:31 PM EST |
As long as SCO only threatens to sue, their stock will go up - don't know why.
They cannot, however, actually sue because they would then be guilty of fraud.
Because of the other suits, they KNOW their claims are uncertain. To do anything
to actually try to enforce those claims at this time is fraud.
Hawkeye[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
If I was an old SCO licencee, running some strategic piece of software under
that licence, chances are that i am also using Linux elsewere in my
organisation. In this case, I would feel intimidated by present SCO action. I
would also be afraid of loosing support from a vendor who is likely to dissapear
from the market, support being the only reason for me to stick by them anyway,
and start a desperate search for an alternative.
Can anyone confirm wether faithful SCO customers are seeking alternatives
actively, and with accelerating frequency? I would love to see the market react
to a report stating that SCO is loosing bussiness as a reaction to the
lawsuits.
Ulf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST |
In our country usually there are no work for people who knows about something,
the workplaces usually are occupied by stupid or who know nothing people that
usually speaks so loud or got friends, here the work or knowledge means
nothing, the justice is away, the blah blah blah rules all. So I can´t believe
that the same happen in USA or another countries. They can speak loud and sue
everybody and nobody make them shut up and the most unbelieved is the fact that
every time that Darl or Didio speaks the Nasdaq SOCG grows. In a real world I
need to put my 100 percent effort to stay at top (or at least working) and
usually it's not enough, but for now some company that speaks loud and sue
everything without show some work (I think that SCOG trades with software not
laws) make money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A little comment - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:52 PM EST
- A little comment - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST
- A little comment - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 06:00 PM EST
|
Authored by: AHGrayLensman on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 05:22 PM EST |
...and I'll probably say it again:
"Only an idiot fights a war on
two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a
war on twelve fronts!" --Londo Mollari, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark",
Babylon 5
--Troy --- "You are finite, Zathras is
finite, this... is wrong tool. No, not good, never use this!" --Zathras, "War
Without End (pt. 2)", Babylon 5 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST |
sco can kiss my ass [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 07:03 PM EST |
Man... bring it on SCO bring it on :-P [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gerrynjr on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 07:05 PM EST |
Bring it on SCO!
---
"I wasn't brought in to have warm fuzzies with Slashdot. I was brought in to
increase [SCO's] shareholder value."
--Darl Mcbride
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moogy on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST |
I was rereading the SCOG license and as IANAL someone
help me out here to understand this. First from section
1 of definitions and then section 2 of rights granted.
1.9 "SCO Product" shall mean the SCO intellectual
property in Object Code format included in any or all of
the following: (i) the Software, (ii) the Updates and (iv)
any copy of the Software or Updates; to the extent made
available to You.
1.10 "Software" shall mean the Linux Operating System
in Object Code format.
2.0 GRANT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO
ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO PRODUCT COVERED BY THIS
AGREEMENT.
They never actually define what you are licensing??
"Intellectual Property" has no meaning under law, and
since they do not define the term for the purpose of
licensing, just what are you licensing? Are you licensing
copyrights, patents, trade secrets, what? All of those
things have different requirements as we are seeing in
the cases we've been tracking.
They most clearly are not granting license to all of
these things since they explicitly state that you have
no rights of any kind except for the "SCO PRODUCT"
as defined!? ...but what IS that product?
Isn't it fraud to license something you never even
define?
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 08:10 PM EST |
Friday 8 August 2003
Sontag: "SCO has the right to defend its copyright all the way down to the
end user," said Sontag. "If necessary we will start picking end users
to enforce our rights."
http://www.computerweekly.com/Article124042.htm
August 29, 2003
The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no
concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial
Linux customer to court.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050642514.html
September 5, 2003
The SCO Group is supposed to start sending out "thousands" of bills
this month demanding payment of what is effectively a Linux tax, according to
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/35362_f.htm
November 11, 2003
McBride: "I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without
filing a lawsuit."
http://forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096_print.html
November 21, 2003
SCO Threatens to Derail Novell-SUSE Deal & Sue a Fortune 1000 Linux User
According to SCO, it's got a short list of a handful of unidentified brand names
to choose from - companies it's talked to directly, it said - and it will lodge
suit against one or more of them in the next 90 days. The only thing that will
stop a suit is capitulation. McBride said, "It's license or
litigate."
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/37998.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 09:16 PM EST |
When IBM goes away of his agreement whit Microsoft to develop his own os for the
desktop he release OS2, a real 32 bits operating system. He did not get a great
sucess from it. I remember i received a free copy, and on the pc i use at this
time ( a 486 dx 66 ),all the story was clik and wait and wait and wait.
Then IBM make a deal with Apple to develop the Power PC platform and an OS
dedicated for that. I was to buy one but i wanted full compatibility between the
two. But the deal collapse and Apple further prohib manufacturers to make
clone.
So I choose to stay along whit the *86platform and goes again with Microsoft. At
that time APPLE has a 15% share here in France of the market, he has a full 4%
now. I do not think, they made the good choice.
So IBM has two very bad expériences dealing with proprietary software to get
zero working at the final.
And then they need one and they goes Linux.
By that time Apple was looking for an OS and some says he could look at Linux.
Caldera who was a Linux operator buy SCO to get their Unix business, I supposed
they think they can put some Linux in Unix and vice versa. and made much of a
noise of it. So i found in a revue a cd with a caldera distribution in it and I
give a try to Linux by caldera. The first one was with Corel. I used this to
have a backup solution in case of crash of my windows, no more.
But there was a problem the GPL.
You can GPL some piece of unix or apple code to linux (if you are the very owner
of the rights),but you cannot get some piece of linux into your own proprieatry
software. So APPLE choose BSD derivative, SCO choose going to the court and IBM
choose to go more and more in the Linux business.
Now i have found Mepis that i am going to teach myself because of the Groklaw
affair and the need for free alternative to proprieatry software.
Without the sco action i may never go to Linux so far after all. Thanks SCO
forget my bad english..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 10:49 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 10:36 PM EST |
"'We are not stating yet when that may take place or with whom it
may take place, but you may see something from us in the near future on this,'
he said. . . .
future?
Blake Stowell must have
taken a sip of teflon or swallowed a big lump in his throat to let the word roll
off his touge. Does SCO honestly thinks they have a future? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 11:42 PM EST |
Doesn't SCO saying that they might sue end users give Redhat automatic
standing? After all, one of their customers could have reasonable fear of being
sued, right? What exactly does it take for them to get standing in the issue? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST |
Darl, Darl, Darl: talk is cheap --the world runs on deeds, not words. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:28 AM EST |
Out of curiousity I went to SCO's ftp server. I found this document at ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/Legal_No
tice
NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and
distribution of SCO Linux until
the intellectual property issues surrounding
Linux are resolved. SCO will,
however, continue to support existing SCO Linux
and Caldera OpenLinux
customers consistent with existing contractual
obligations. SCO offers at
no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a
SCO UNIX IP license for
their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of
Linux in binary
format. The license also covers binary use of support updates
distributed
to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce
its
intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing
customers in the marketplace.
Dear SCO customer,
Starting on
November 1, 2003, SCO will institute new procedures
for you to access binary
updates and source rpms. If you own an SCO
licensed copy of Linux (such as such
as OpenLinux, eDesktop, etc.), it
will be necessary for you to register (or
re-register) in order to
continue to receive support files. During the
registration process
you will receive instructions on how the new access
procedure
will work or you can visit:
http://www.sco.com/support/lin
ux_info.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: robert on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST |
From those delightful chaps at www.b3ta.com (if you're not familiar with it!)
The B3ta challenge today was "software we really need". Along with the
"Pizza Printing" software came this:
http://www.ukdragon.com/b3ta/scosue.png
very nice indeed...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST |
I'm an end-user as well. How do we get on the sue list? Having a hard time
getting SCOX to sue me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|