|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:42 PM EST |
They really mean it this time!
--andy richter[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:46 PM EST |
you mean they really really mean it this time
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:46 PM EST |
I guess we'll get to figure out what TSG thinks an Internet Service Provider
and/or a technology company isn't. Does this, or does this not, mean that
Google is, or is not, a target?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST |
you mean they really really really mean it this time
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST |
| ..I mean, the idiots did sign. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:49 PM EST |
I think he really does mean it.
He's scheduled to come out with his quarterly non-earnings report the following
day. He needs something to draw attention away from the fact that SCO is going
out of business. Otherwise the stock price will take a dive. That's why we're
getting so much FUD this week.
Of course, SCO stock may take a dive anyway . . .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:55 PM EST |
"The SCO Group on Tuesday -- or at the very least, no less than a week --
will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user..."
:-)
Is it possible that they have finally found a complicit (i.e. let's pretend you
sue us and we roll over out of court) licensee in the ranks of the Fortune 1000?
Seems unlikely, but you never know (e.g. Everyone's Internet's 'seemed like a
good idea at the time' license).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
And Skiba will raise his SCO target to $300.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:58 PM EST |
"This is an announcement about an announcement. How weird is that?"
SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride also said Monday that, "SCO will
also be addressing the decision to announce soon the decision to mention the
future date of the announcement regarding the announcement of the decision to
disclose the announcement about the press release regarding the announcement of
the decision to announce the contents of the announcement of the documents
containing the announcement of the infringing Linux code".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MarkT on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:01 PM EST |
Does this mean that they want to give us something besides their financials to
talk about on Wednesday?
I'm guessing that the story will be along the lines of "don't worry about
where we are now, this next phase of IP enforcement will reinforce the value of
the company"
But hey, I'm just guessing. LOL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:05 PM EST |
Is the SCO dog and pony show finally going on the road? Of course the
intellectually overdrawn mind of SCO seems to change faster than the weather!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:07 PM EST |
My guess is WalMart. They've been selling computers with Linux (Lindows,
Lycoris, and Mandrake, to name a few distributions) for some time. WalMart
therefore sells Linux to end users, but is not a Tech company nor an ISP.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- WalMart - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:19 PM EST
- WalMart is a Linux shop - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:23 PM EST
- Wal-Mart - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST
- Wal-Mart - Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:19 PM EST
- wmt bigger than msft? - Authored by: MarkusQ on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:06 AM EST
- wmt bigger than msft?--No, WMT bigger than IBM - Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:36 AM EST
- wmt bigger than msft?--No, WMT bigger than IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:21 AM EST
- wmt , ibm , msft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:38 AM EST
- wmt , ibm , msft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:00 AM EST
- wmt , ibm , msft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST
- wmt , ibm , msft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:19 AM EST
- wmt , ibm , msft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST
- wmt , ibm , msft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST
- wmt bigger than msft?--No, WMT bigger than IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:43 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: jkondis on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:00 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:04 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: TerryL on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:05 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: markhb on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: TerryL on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: legal insanity on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:13 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:57 AM EST
- WalMart - Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST
- WalMart? - Dont be silly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST |
| ...so Darl makes a public announcement attacking someone, like always. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST |
Nothing has changed -- Novell still stands in the way.
But I assume it's not illegal to sue someone for using your property, even if
its ownership is clearly in dispute. Is there any other country besides the U.S.
where that's legal?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST |
There was an earlier post that tracked press releases and stock price... In the
early stages, to pump the price, and now to reduce the decline of the stock.
Guess which this one is?
I didn't invent logic, I just USE IT.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:11 PM EST |
This should be ...um... interesting. They're doing so well managing all the
cases in front of the courts already, being timely about providing full
discovery and the like, that a couple more cases shouldn't be too difficult for
their elite legal eagles to handle.
Maybe we'll see Boies after all.
Anyone wanna make bets it's a drug company... one that's a major supplier to
them?
...D
P.S. Yes, it's sarcasm.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST |
| The "EV1 uses microsoft" publicity was arranged by public relations firm
Waggener Edstrom. Just look at
this web page. See the contact address at the bottom?
If you
go and poke around the Waggener Edstrom website you'll find their client
list prominently displayed. What do you think the chances are that one of
these companies will be the one that SCO picks to sue tomorrow. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tomas on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:18 PM EST |
I personally suspect that SCOsource will try to steer away from an
"Internet Service Provider and/or a technology company" for the simple
reason that those companies could present a tougher victim than a company not as
"up" on the nuances.
The easiest targets are likely to be companies who use computers in the
background as tools to accomplish some job rather than companies who's primary
job may be computer use and knowledge.
---
Tom
en.gin.eer en-ji-nir n 1: a mechanism for converting caffeine into designs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cadfael on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST |
I'm sorry, I have lost count of the lawsuits.
1. IBM
2. Novell
3. RedHat
4. Australian litigation
5. SCO Germany agreement
What have I missed? How many lawyers can these guys afford? Ignore any validity
of any lawsuit for the moment, but that many drains of cash with decreasing
revenues (unless EV1.net wrote a HUGE cheque) limits their ability to maintain
viability. For the US lawsuits, is it all Boies et al? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:22 PM EST |
"Is this the week they announce their financials or something?"
It's the week SCO ran like cowards from an opportunity to finally show evidence.
A German court and Uninvention told them, in essence, put up, pay up, or shut up
with the claims. The SCOundrels tucked tail, weaselled a settlement, shut up,
and ran.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Glenn on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:22 PM EST |
I wonder just how long it will take a fortune 1000 company to file a motion
for dismissal citing the Novell claims as primary amd also referencing the Red
Hat suit?
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:32 PM EST |
SCO: You are infringing our copyrights, see we have these copyright registration
certificates (and don't worry about Novell)
Victim: What specific aspects of your copyrights are we infringing?
SCO: It's in this huge mound of 100,000,000 paper documents, somewhere
Victim: Where?
SCO: We need discovery from you before we can say
Victim: You are the one who said that you are infringing our copyrights, so you
should know what your allegations are.
SCO: Not telling
Victim To Court: They need to tell us what their claim is
SCO To Court: We need need more time to respond to Victim's last statement
SCO To Court: We just gave them some more bogus documents, so the court should
ignore the victim's last statement
Victim To Court: They still haven' told us what the case is about
(A few months later)
Court To SCO: Tell the victim what the case is about.
(A few months later)
SCO To Court: We need more discovery from the victim before we can say. Oh and
BTW, can we change the whole basis of our law suit. It ain't about Linux, it's
about AIX. Yeh that's the ticket[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:33 PM EST |
SCO will have to show their cards if they initiate a lawsuit. Since we are
talking copyright, the stalling they have used in the IBM case wil not work as
well (surely a defendent could file for dismissal if SCO presents no evidence?)
So, if this would bring about the beginning of the end, what's SCO's play here?
My speculation is that they are hoping that the defendent will put the whole
thing on the slow track by pointing at Novell's copyrights and demand that that
trial is concluded first.
This then seems to meet SCO's goals: publicize a lawsuit, present no evidence,
delay and more delay.
Any thoughts on this? Am I wildly wrong?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: capn_buzzcut on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:45 PM EST |
Won't this action by SCO bring about a bunch of lawsuits against them by Linux
kernel contributors? I thought that's what Eric Raymond more or less said in
his open letter to Darl a few months back.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kh on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:47 PM EST |
If someone who has contributed to the kernel gets an injunction to stop SCO
distributing their code unless SCO agrees in court to the GPL then:
If SCO doesn't agree to clase 5 of the GPL they can't distribute
the kernel and
I think this could make them want to hurry things along a
bit.
If SCO does agree that would infuence it's other court cases (by
estoppel?).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas An. on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST |
Hi everyone,
There are a couple of frients that I wish to introduce to this SCO vs IBM etal
phenomenon.
***Is there a summary page that offers the entire story in a nutshel ?
A page writen very simply (like child's version of the bible) that someone can
read and be able to grasp the general idea (and the injustice involved) before
they decide if they want to delve into the archives/databases to dig out the
rest of the details.
What would you recomend for people who are really pressed for time but they
still want to get a general idea?
Thanks
Thomas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:54 PM EST |
Am I the only one who finds it odd when you do a google.com search for Ev1 you
get their web page and right below, their participation in Microsoft case
study(if you can call it that with no hard data) which seemed to somehow find
windows faster in some regard to linux. Yes, Ev1 seems to have snuggled up to MS
for I'd say a fair drop in their cost of Windows. I of course could not do
anything but to suggest that perhaps Ev1 under blessings? from MS decided to pay
SCO some money. This of course could be construed as a precident. It avoid MS
from looking directly involved. Ev1 soepena coming soon?
Tyme[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:54 PM EST |
Has it occurred to anybody that it might an AIX or Dynix user?
After all, according to SCO, using these operating systems is a copyright
infringement too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST |
I have been wondering...
If SCO launches a suit against a Linux user and they have made it clear that
they plan to sue others... which affects the credibility of all corporations and
individuals that use Linux...
Is this a legitimate basis for a class action counter lawsuit? Defamation of
character, loss of business ...
Where do I sign up?
-------------------------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST |
From Novell case:
3 - Memorandum by Novell Inc in support of [2-1] motion to dismiss (blk) [Entry
date 02/10/04]
So it's been 20 days so far - any sign of a SCO reply?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:01 AM EST |
I still don't understand. If SCO sues an end user for copyright won't it go
something like this:
Victim: Your honor, SCO doesn't own the copyright to Linux, Linus and a few
hundred others do. SCO needs to settle the copyright matter with them. The GPL
can't make me responsible for someone else's criminal act. If there is Unix
code in Linux then the party that currently holds the Linux copyright on those
files is responsible and is the only party SCO can have issue with.
If SCO really had a case they would be doing the following:
1. Identify what exactly is theirs.
2. File suit against the parties that contributed that to the Linux code base.
This suit would (in theory) also include contract claims since the party that
contributed it would also have to have access to Unix.
3. Notify the Linux community and work with them to remove their IP from Linux.
At no time does an infringement create a business opportunity like SCO is trying
to create. You can sue for damages from whomever put in the code, but it's
absurd to think you can create a new business revenue stream based on the
theft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How they will do this - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:22 AM EST
- Won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:16 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: kuwan on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:02 AM EST |
OK everybody it's time to place your bets. While I'm not going to try and
guess which company they're going to sue I would put money on it being a
current customer or licensee. They'll either go after someone with a Unix
System V source license, an OpenServer/UnixWare customer, or a company
that
has both. Remember what SCO said about
contracts (fourth quote)
before:
Copyrights and
patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are
what you use against
parties you have relationships with. From a legal
standpoint, contracts end up
being far stronger than anything you could do
with
copyrights.
They'll put some nonsense in the complaint
about how they are in breach of
their System V source license or
OpenServer/UnixWare EULA because they use
Linux (they like to read stuff into
their contracts that doesn't exist, just as in
the IBM case). I wouldn't be
surprised if it's one of their current customers
that is moving away from SCO's
products in favor of Linux.
Anyway, if I'm right it will go further to
prove my theory that a contract with a
Canopy company makes you a future legal
target.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST |
People here are saying SCO will eventually run out of
money and go away. Wrong. Until the courts unequivacally
throw out any claims that they have they will not go
away. They have the virtually unlimited cash funds of
a very rich company at their disposal - remember that SCO
is only a sock puppet, and that you need to focus on the
puppeteer.
As that other Anonymous poster keeps saying, "Follow the
money".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:05 AM EST |
| Maybe they will sue PJ and groklaw? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fgoldstein on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:09 AM EST |
Isn't there an obscure, seldom-invoked crime known as common barratry, which is
committed by a lawyer who knowingly brings a false suit? I should think by now
that Boies & Co., as well as Darl's brother, should know enough that their
case is specious, and thus be liable for it. The lawsuit victim just might have
reason to file such a complaint.
Their other countersuits will be interesting to watch too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST |
If SCO sues one of 1500 companies they sent a threatening letter to...
Isn't the best way for the other 1,497 (all except Lehman Brothers and
Ev1servers.net) to file for declaratory judgement that they are not infringing
SCO's copyrights.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST |
I just realized, all of us, including me have been duped.
It's a sales pitch, no suit pending.
I bet they are trying to close another licensing deal, and this is more pressure
they're attempting to lay on, to close it.
If they close the deal, no need for a suit.
If they don't close the deal, they can always say they are still in negotiations
with the intended suit victim.
bobn, spotted the give away in an earlier post. To quote him:
My bet: There will be no suit tomorrow or any other time. SCOX cannot afford
to have a suit thrown out, which is a likley result of trying to sue an
end-user
under current circumstances.
Look at their wording: "SCO has narrowed down its list of possible targets
to a 'handful' of the world's 1,000 largest corporations, McBride said."
They're filing *tomorrow* and they still don't know who? Yeah, right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST |
I am not saying anything substantial until we find out who the SCO Group is
suing and more importantly what the alleged torts are. We will retaliate, but
retaliation is most effective when it is not merely savage but knowledgeable,
methodical and relentless.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:28 AM EST |
| I predict that the target will be one of the vendors that SCO complained about
in its lawsuit against IBM (Sherwin-Williams, Papa John's Pizza, Auto Zone).
And the lawsuit will have nothing to do with code in the kernel, but rather use
of SCO's UnixWare or OpenServer libraries under Linux.
This will be more a
test of "shrink-wrap license" v. "first sale doctrine" than SCO v. Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mikeca on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:32 AM EST |
The last sentence of the Robert McMillan article says:
The company,
Houston-based EV1Servers.Net has purchased site licenses from SCO for its two
data centers for an undisclosed seven figure sum, according to
SCO.
This seems hard for me to believe. Does the seven figures
include the cents as well as the dollars? Could it be some sort of kick back
arrangement where very little real money changes hands? Perhaps M$ kicks
back enough money to EV1Servers.net to cover the license?
If it is not a
kick back arrangement, you got to wonder about EV1Servers.net management. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:33 AM EST |
Is this the week they announce their financials or
something?
Several posts on slashdot claiming SCO's quarterly
earnings report is due Wednesday. (yeah, yeah, "real authoritative source"
:) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More fool you - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:40 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST |
Just a puzzler to me... since IANAL. Many large companies that I encounter
actually run more than one distribution of Linux, often a combination of SuSE
and RedHat, with a mixture of others. So... let's say TSG files a copyright
infringement suit for the use of Linux. Ignoring the fact that the claim could
be stacked behind Novell, et.al., how would a lawyer proceed in this? Call in
all the distributions, or ask TSG to identify which distributions specifically
are infringing? If they say "all" and the customer has multiple
distros, each providing indemnification, how would that work?
The other question is, how is TSG sure that a company is a Linux user? What's
the valid input to their list of potential victims...er...targets?
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IANAL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:04 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:37 AM EST |
McBride said the arrangement with EV1Servers.net is perpetual and that SCO
doesn't offer companies their money back if courts later find SCO's claims
baseless. It will bring in revenue that will be material to SCO's financial
results, he added. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:42 AM EST |
You are forgetting that in the past SCO always said they would sue over
copyright and contract issues. They know that until the Novel issues are
resolved, they can't get away with a copyright only lawsuit. So I suspect they
will pick one of their customers and get them on some breach of contract based
on the audit they held a couple months back.
They most likely will add some copyright item in the complaint to help their
stock price, something like the copyright issue they added to the IBM suit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:03 AM EST |
Fortune 1000 rank - 326. They will accuse them of copying SCO Unix library
files to Linux. Note, it has nothing to do with any SysV code being present in
Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:09 AM EST |
On the Yahoo! Financials forums people were talking about SCO not filing with
the SEC today, thus missing a deadline which could cause their RBC PIPE to
mature early. Does anyone know any more about this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:21 AM EST |
Fayjar reports in an earlier post news.com article here
which is an updated article that states:
The first target will be
a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual
leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright
infringement claims.
Also, wouldn't it be such sweet justice
if Judge Wells just happens to release her ruling Tues or Weds?
By: (a not
logged in) NastyGuns[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:33 AM EST |
LOL!!!! EV1.NET has been setting up their Linux servers using .... wait for it
folks - stiffies!!! Even down here in "dark" Africa we have discovered
CDROMs and self- installing ISO's. As somebody else put it the other day - Open
Source doesn't give you a blanket license to be incurably STUPID. For outsiders
this doesn't that inspire confidence in EV1.NET's general IT capabilities and
perhaps theyare better of using Windows.
From
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14464
"EV1 Servers.net personnel knew how to deploy a Linux-based server quickly.
They had script-filled floppies ready to go, and on a moment's notice they could
slip a floppy into a bare Dell PowerEdge 1600SC and walk away. Forty-five
minutes later, that server would be fully configured with Red Hat Linux and the
popular Ensim WEBppliance control panel. By pushing floppy after floppy into the
drive of a bare metal server, EV1 Servers.net's data center team could easily
meet the demand for 1,000 new servers per week. Unless they could find a way to
bring that level of automation to the deployment of a Windows-based server, they
saw no way to meet a similar level of demand for Windows-based hosting
services."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dodger on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:10 AM EST |
| Manana - Why can't SCO announce the suee today? Every time it is tomorrow. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:11 AM EST |
http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18201405
Darl C. McBride, SCO president and chief executive officer, announced the
lawsuit at the Software 2004 conference in San Francisco Stowell said.
"I'd love to be more specific," Stowell said, "but,
unfortunately, I can't be. That news is being saved until Tuesday."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:23 AM EST |
It could of course be another suit against novell, redhat or ibm. They didn't
specify it was sombody new...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:32 AM EST |
They said "lawsuit *tomorrow*" not "lawsuit on tuesday March
2nd".
Which means they have chosen a deadline that can not be missed. "Tomorrow
never comes".
---
Just my 0.02€ contribution to the floccinaucinihilipilification of SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:42 AM EST |
SCO Australia:
1. Stop picking on us
2. Pay up, or we sue
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39116390,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:04 AM EST |
Weeding through the noise at Yahoo, I found this from one of the dependable
regulars:
About EV1
by: korbomite
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 03/01/04 09:36 pm
Msg: 100568 of 100685
EV1 has become famous as a porn hosting site:
http://hosts4porn.com/profiles/ev1.cfm
and
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/140124-1.html (hint why they
changed their name from RackShack--their IP address was blackholed for porn
spamming)
and
From Wired Magazine:
QUOTE
Since mid-September, numerous myNetWatchman participants have received repeated
probes on port 135 from a handful of Internet protocol addresses assigned to
Everyones Internet (EV1.net), an Internet service provider in Houston, according
to Baldwin. The numeric addresses translate into "NetBIOS machine
names" that begin with WEBPOPUP and that have appeared in several recent
ads, he said...EV1.net officials, who did not respond to interview requests, are
investigating the issue, according to Baldwin...Now that spammers have pioneered
the Windows Messenger technology, worm writers may be next to target the
service, according to Harlan Carvey, a security engineer with a financial
services firm..."I'm sure we're going to see spyware or malware that makes
use of this," Carvey said.
ENDQUOTE
from
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55795,00.html
and
http://jdo.org/hamas.html (That's right: Hamas and the al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade
terrorists use EV1 as their ISP and hosting provider)
and
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/02/1064988318651.html (hackers and
Trojan writers)
k
#END
Truth is definitely stranger than fiction. It would seem that both companies
figured that they could get some mileage out of the license deal if they spun it
the right way (and the truth and backroom dealing would only stay quiet). After
all, reports have it that Marsh and McBride were pal-ling around in California
during the past week at a trade show.
Dan M[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:05 AM EST |
Robert Marsh of ev1servers comments
http://forum.ev1servers.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42270
Interesting, sounds almost like damage control.
Could it be that he thought being "SCO IP Compliant" might be a
selling point for his company, and now he's starting to realize he may have made
a $1m mistake?
And more significantly why does InformationWeek report that he is attending a
conference with Darl McBride of SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:23 AM EST |
You know, you would THINK that with SCO's copyrights in question - and no
established SCOIP in Linux - that this type of suit would not even be
entertained by the US courts.
That says something both for the need for changes in laws and the behavior of
SCO.
If SCO does have real IP - they're fighting hard to prevent any Linux user from
removing it. They don't WANT you to _not_ infringe. They want everyone
infringing - because they want you to be _forced_ to pay. Regardless of whether
or not you CHOOSE to use their IP.
It's like watching someone vandalize your car on a security camera. On one hand,
it's funny - because they're simply stupid, you KNOW they're going to get caught
- you've got them on record [video]. Though, on the other hand, that fool
scratched your car!
In the end, he is caught and ordered to pay restitution. You file on your
insurance, pay your deductable, and get your car fixed. After a few years you
finally receive your restitution. And the criminal will pay for his crime to the
city/state/federal.
But, regardless - you are harmed. Your vehicle was damaged, and you had to deal
with the inconvenience of it being in the shop, as well as, the cost of your
deductable.
In every crime there is a victim. We are the victims here, and Darl and SCO
don't care that WE are the ones who have to pay for their crimes right now.
Though, there is a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that SCO and Darl are
looking right into that security camera - and their debt to the world will be
paid in due time.
One of these days Microsoft is going to stop babying you, Darl, and when you are
left on your own you will pay for your crimes.
When that day comes, may God be with you.
No one else will.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Greebo on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:09 AM EST |
| There is a LOT of talk on EV1's Bulletin board and
the cusomers are not happy.
What got me thinking though was
one comment that quoted HeadSurfer as saying that 'Other companies had also
bought the SCO IP License', but just hadn't made public announcements.
So
the question is this... Don't SCO have to declare this income in it's SEC
filings and announce where the money comes from? When do they file the next SEC
filing, and how do i get a copy of
it?
Cheers,
Greebo ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:30 AM EST |
I mean:If it's only a marketing measure, and just to be on the media, who could
be a bigger high profile target linux user than Google?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:52 AM EST |
Are we trying to be too clever here. There are a couple of large companies
that are obvious targets - Sun and HP.
Both have Unix licenses, both have a
Linux based product range, both are Fortune 1000, neither is an ISP.
HP
famously offered to to indemnify Linux customers and Sun has made the usual mumbling noise they
make whenever they have to make any public statement about Linux
support.
---
If you love some code, set it free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:56 AM EST |
What is wrong with the legal system in the USA ?!!!!
- this stinks and the courts just sit around twiddling their thumbs? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:36 AM EST |
So this is what they plan to talk about in their conference call
tomorrow...
I think I'll listen in on the web.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:58 AM EST |
I do confess at starting to get a bit fed up with TSG and their continuous
campaign against Linux and Open Source Software. If this had been a slander
against an individual (like Darl McBride for instance) then the court would have
dealt with it much quicker but the case seems to be dragging out forever despite
the evidence mounting up against SCO.
As a Linux newbie (or relatively so), what is the general opinion as to what to
do? (i.e.)
1) Just ignore TSGs rantings
2) Start a campaign for an end user lawsuit against SCO
3) Give up and pay SCO's extortion fee (just kidding)
4) Advertize everywhere and refute the M$ and SCO FUD?
I (personally) have no intention of either giving up using Linux or paying TSG
for 'old rope'.
---
"There is no spoon?"
"Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:13 AM EST |
I suspect SCO will choose a company that it considers will most likely settle.
Hence not a technology company that understands IT law. Someone big who doesn't
need the hastle/publicity. Then they could use this settlement to wave about the
stock markets.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:22 AM EST |
| According to
this
article, they've ALREADY LAUNCHED their
lawsuit. However just to make the whole thing even more surreal, the target of
the lawsuit is STILL not identified. This is just getting ridiculous! Is this
for real or just a lazy news website jumping the gun. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:23 AM EST |
<sarcasm>
Hi folks, Bro Darl here.
Just wanted to let you Linux lovers know that I am burrowed in like a tick and I
will not go until one of us dies.
My brother assures me that I have a great legal case against you guys, and you
just can't see it because it is based literally upon nothing! Thats right, the
copied code is there for anyone not to see.
Don't you get it? The copyrighted code that we claim is all of the duplicated
blank lines, tabs, and spaces in all Linux files. Here are the types of copied
lines:
1) Lines that begin and end with a line-feed. (Yes, by bother taught me to say
line-feed)
2) Lines that contain only spaces and a line-feed.
3) Lines that contain tabs, spaces and then a line-feed.
4) There is another I swear, but, I forgot what they told me to say. I'll have
to ask my BS what I was supposed to say.
Yep, it's in there, you can't take it out, and just to be sure I don't get this
wrong, I am announcing that I am looking to buy some tiny nearly dead company
that owns a submarine patent on using blank lines, tabs, and spaces, to make
code more readable. It's all over for you. All your code are mine and my
brothers.
Nice knowing you,
Bro Darl
</sarcasm>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:42 AM EST |
| How appropriate for a (ex) Software Company that tended to be late with
everything to give a new meaning to Real Soon
Now
---
Today's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:50 AM EST |
| According to this article the lawsuit has already been filed. If
that's the case, then shouldn't it be possible to find out who the target was
from court records ? Or is ComputerWeekly talking BS ? One would think they
would have at least asked SCO who they sued, but apparently journalists no
longer care about minor details like that... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:51 AM EST |
SCO> Random Linux user is using our IP without our say so.
Linux user> But I do have a licsence to use it, The GNU GPL.
SCO> That licsence isn't vaild.
Linux user> Then why do you distrbute 'your' IP to your customers under the
the GPL?
SCO> No we don't!
Linux user> yes you do, you distrbute linux kernel updates to your customers.
Your on record as saying your IP is in the Linux kernel. By the terms of the GPL
we can therefore use SCO's IP.
SCO> The GPL is not vaild!
Linux user> I see, well then. Your honour we've submited patches to the Linux
kernel when we fixed up some bugs we found in the course of using it. If the
court finds the GPL not to be a vaild lisense our work reverts back to basic
copyright law. As such, we'd like to beat SCO over the head with a big clue
stick now.
Judge> Proceed.
SCO> Oh crap.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:19 AM EST |
Per the Robert McMillan Report EV1.net purchased SCO Linux licenses. I have just
notified 2 people I know that use them for their websites. They will be
confirming with the company tomorrow if the report is true. If it is they are
going to pull their websites. We need to pass the word for every SCO customer
that buys one of these goofy licenses and it is confirmed, we need to start a
boycott. These client probably mean well but they are agents of FUD by buying
licenses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:21 AM EST |
I suppose what bothers me the most is that SCO seems proud of suing. While I
understand the need in some cases to protect a companies assets, SCO has no
viable case and the proof is still non-existant. Suing people or companies isn't
good no matter how you look at it and in my opinion gives a black eye to
whomever does the suing. This is rediculous and I hope when all this is said and
done, that SCO pays the price for their rediculous claims. They lie,cheat, and
steal. Then they turn around and sue. I'm not sure how the laws are set up in
other countries, but here in the US, if you have the money to pay the lawyers,
you don't even have to have a real case. Proof and evidence sometimes means
little, and the law allows the unjust to go without penalty many times.
Have enough cash to lie,cheat, and steal. Then pay your way out of it. Sad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:30 AM EST |
SCOX stock is hovering around $12.00 per share, they had to start spewing
something, anything, to try to pump it up before the house comes crashin down
around their ears. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:56 AM EST |
What's the next court event (or likely event) in the IBM case now, and how long
do we have to wait for it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:04 AM EST |
I can not believe that any judge will accept such a case.
IANAL, but as I understand the GPL, it is NOT a transfer of copyrights. It is a
license.In my opinion, the alleged SCO-IP in Linux is an integral part of Linux
and a derivative work.
Section 5 of the GPL clearly states that distribution indicates acceptance of
the GPL.I.o.w. they - by distributing the code together with the rest of the
Linux kernel *after* the alleged discovery have effectively GPLed it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:15 AM EST |
EV1Servers.net CEO Robert Marsh posted a response
to all the criticism about the SCO deal on their user forum. In it he
states:
"We did not license a linux distribution or any software
covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP
from SCO." (emphasis mine)
If the license did not cover any software
which could be interpreted to fall under SCO's vague EULA, what did it cover?
Did EV1 license the use of UNIX documentation, or the right to display an SCO
logo? Being mysterious about exactly what the license is for, and the actual
cost which may ultimately be passed on to its customers, does not make sense as
a strategy for reducing customer anxiety and uncertainty. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: old joe on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST |
| Statement by EV1's head surfer
http://forums.ev1servers.net/showthread.php?s=dcd881a4266698d9ae9188c0aa20bab2&a
mp;threadid=42270 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST |
| And the winner is ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dkpatrick on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST |
The news release makes it sound like SCO will sue a Linux user on IP issues.
SCO apparently has dropped the IP issues from the IBM suit and is only dealing
with copyright issues.
I believe that SCO knew they couldn't win the IP issue in the IBM suit. IBM had
the deep pockets, access to all the code, etc. etc. But SCO couldn't just say
"we made a mistake" so with a big fanfare they "added" the
copyright issues which are ultimately not a big deal.
Now SCO turns around and says "We're going to rake some user over the coals
on IP issues." SCO never admitted they had no proof of IP theft so now the
burden is thrust on a much less capable company of defending the IP charges.
Yes, it's all BS but what will the average company do? They don't have the legal
talent IBM does nor do they have the technical ability to force the issue with
SCO as IBM does.
SCO's strategy COULD force companies to settle and the IP issue never gets
resolved! They will not pick a Red Hat user, a SuSE user or a user, a HP
customer, or an IBM customer. In those cases the vendor has either indemnified
the customer or demonstrated the willingness to fight the good fight.
Let's say they pick a Lindows user, or Mandrake, or a user that simply
downloaded the distribution and did it themselves. Who will support their
defense?
Assuming SCO does as they promised and file suit, the identity of the target is
going to be crucial.
---
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sjgibbs on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:50 AM EST |
Overall the stats show that press releases encourage stock gains over 7 days,
but soem graphs I have put together (can't publish Yahoo copyrights are
involved) show that another affect of a press releasde is to slow big drops.
Thus announcing the announcment - statistically - is beneficial for share
holders. By about 10 cents IIRC (i don't have OO with me here)
Simon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: perpetual_newbie on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST |
Something just hit me here... I remember being in college and watching one guy
continually proposition one woman after another and continually get turned down.
When I asked him why he did such a foolish thing, his response was, "If I
ask 100 women, maybe one or two will go along with it... and that's success to
me!"
I can't help but wonder if that is the strategy they're going for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:00 AM EST |
March 1st, 2004: EV1 gives SCO $1 million plus in "protection"
money.
March 2nd, 2004: SCO files suit against EV1's competition?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mnuttall on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:03 AM EST |
| No sooner do Red Hat file their Reply in
Support of its Motion to Supplement the Record with "additional evidence to
demonstrate that an apprehension of suit was indeed reasonable when Red Hat
filed its Complaint" than SCO announce to the press, We're really going to sue
some Linux users now. Red Hat might have found such press statements useful in
their filing. Coincidence?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST |
Netcraft have an interview with Robert Marsh who is CEO and "HeadSurfer" at
EV1.
There's no date on the article but it can't be more than a couple of months
old.
The Yahoo SCOX board has some interesting theories, including the possibility
that MS, EV1 and SCO could arrange a mutual agreement about licenses such that
$1M moves from MS -> EV1 -> SCO. Silly of course as Marsh has already
stated that they consider that they paid a "small amount" for the SCO IP
license. If $1M is a small amount for EV1 then they really must be pulling
in the profits.
---
If you love some code, set it free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nickieh on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Mickey-D's probably SCUMX's single biggest customer, and they're testing SuSE in
their German stores. I'm sure with the Novell/SuSE/IBM deal, Big Blue's
lobbying for the US business, which would gut what remaining operating income
SCOG has coming in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- McDonalds? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: T. ProphetLactus on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST |
| From: Additional Headsurfer Comments Regarding SCO Contract
(EV1 server
forums)
"We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered
by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from
SCO."
Has anyone been able to discover just WHAT "IP" they licensed from
the scogs? With specificity?
I hope someone points out that "scog IP"
is not something you license, its something you replace. Once you can
figure out what it IS.
TPL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST |
All SCOG has to do is keep announcing an impending lawsuit every few
weeks. After all, this is FUD. There is NO infringing code.
This is marketing via threats like organized criminals. SCOG intends to scare
people into paying money for protection. Where the heck is the FTC?
If SCOG really does sue an end user, their game is over and SCOG knows it.
Growlaw'ns need to relax and loosen up several notches. This fight is over the
long haul. Conserve your energy and keep your powder dry.
Be very aware of trolls, shills, and paid flunkies. I smell patrolling rats on
occasion. M$ pays a large number of people to patrol. Communist China pays
30,000 people to patrol the Internet and M$ has provided the commies with
M$ SW to quickly identify Internet users.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST |
an interesting remark by Chris Sontag about
the dropping of trade secret violations in
the IBM suit. He says:
Commenting on the amended lawsuit, Sontag said that the
trade secret violation claim was "probably the least
significant allegation, and it will allow us to focus on
the most significant complaints".
I wonder if there are quotes from SCO about how
extremely important the trade secrets part of the
suit is. It would be fun to compare.
(the quote is from http://www.vnunet.com/News/1153187) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:26 AM EST |
Sorry, but this is the picture I get of TSG:
We really mean it this time!
(hands on hips)
Someone is in big trouble, mister! (points finger
menacingly) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST |
| "The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux
user for..."
Which Tuesday? :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:39 AM EST |
while (any_media == will_listen)
{
spew = FUD;
SCOprintf
("n%s, we really mean it this time!", spew);
}
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: 106ja on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST |
It seems that they will sue some SCO user for breach of contract with some
copiright added
---
Don't judge me by my english. My native langue have no X's or Y'es[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST |
http//pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000108.pdf [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:02 AM EST |
sco conference call!
http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: zjimward on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST |
They've also started new PR on their web site.
Have a look at this Five Reasons to Choose UNIX® Instead of Linux®:
http://www.thescogroup.com/5reasons/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sir_Chancealot on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST |
Been lurking here for quite a while, and finally wanted to respond. SCUM^H^HO
needs to be hung with their own rope.
Here is how to do it. First, someone with GPL code included in SCO's
distributions needs to file a COPYRIGHT suite against SCO, saying in essense
that SCO is distributing their code without a license. Sco HAS to respond that
they have a valid license (the GPL), thus we would make SCO DEFEND the GPL, or
they would have to admit willful copyright violations. You use all of SCOs
arguments against them, even the one about the GPL being unconstitutional. They
would have to defend each and every argument. (And they would win.) Now, you
have forced them to set the very precedent that would be used against them by
IBM, et. al.
Very slick, very clean, quite ironic, and poetic justice at it's finest.
The attorney for one of the open source groups hinted at this when he was
talking how a GPL copyright infringement case would go in court.
It should garner quite a bit of news. Now only if I had some copyrights in any
of the open source code that SCO is distributing...... finding the money to fund
a suit would be easy! ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:11 AM EST |
In order to successfully sue a Linux user, they first have to convince the judge
in the IBM case to give them all of the AIX source. Without that, they cannot
prove any copyright violation, since it is the IBM and Sequent created code that
SCO now claims ownership of. This is at the heart of their claims of copyright
infringement. Their problem is, without the discovery from IBM, they don't know
what it is they are claiming to own, and have no evidence to present. The Sys V
claims are just a smoke-screen giving them time to crack into IBM's code vault.
How they are going to delay discovery in the new case until they can win
discovery in the IBM case is beyond me. This is probably why they didn't file
the lawsuit back in February. My prediction is that they're going to sue one of
their own customers that are using both SCO and Linux. That may give them
something to sue about if they fail to get AIX code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST |
If they believe they have identified a company running some SCO application on
Linux using binary libraries from SCO they might actually have a case. It
wouldn't really be about Linux (or actually relevant to the IBM case), but it
could be a win they could announce publicly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:30 AM EST |
SCO's Australia/New Zealand head (the story link was kindly posted here by
someone else). Luckily, I wasn't eating when I read this!
"I feel that many of the comments that have been made in publications,
print media, online and in press releases… have been factually
incorrect," he said.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39116390,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Translation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST
- Close... - Authored by: bobn on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:54 AM EST
- Choking hazard! - Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:43 AM EST |
Its Tuesday. Will there be a live Web-cast of the event?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST |
| The best defense is the attack [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:10 AM EST |
Assuming they actually do it, when today? Either right before the markets
open (which didn't happen) or right after they close.
By doing it right after market closing (which is vastly better than doing it
while the market is open because the SEC might really have a problem with
that) they get a whole day of market speculation driving up the price.
Expect a big block sale right at 3:59:59 cashing in.
Then, the news is out prior to the Wednesday earnings announcements --
just in time for the evening press cycle, and nobody gets to respond to it for
12 hours. Then, they can come up with disappointing financials (but plenty
of "legitimate" excuses).
They'll announce sometime after 4pm EST and before 6pm Utah time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Timing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: capitalist_pig on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
Has anyone mentioned the Halloween VII documents on here yet? (Someone probably
has, but I haven't seen it...)
Anyway, they mention "concrete action" against Linux.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween7.php
I wonder if this might be the "concrete action" they are talking
about?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST |
| I'd like to make a prediction.
SCOG won't "merely" sue a Fortune 1000 company
over copyright violations. There's always some little twist to their lawsuits,
like suing Novell for Libel of Title instead of straight contract violation. It
never works, but like Wiley Coyote, they're always trying (maybe that's what
happens when you buy your lawyers from Acme Corp. ;-)
For example (I don't
have a devious legal mind, but I'll give it a shot), they'll sue one of their
Unix or UnixWare licensees for vague contract violations and throw in
some vague copyright violations to boot. Just enough possible contract
violations so it won't be laughed out of court, but enough copyright violations
so they can announce, "See, we've filed our first copyright lawsuit".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST |
| This
article claims Darl
indicated that the first target will be an existing SCO
customer in order to
give SCO "contractural leverage."
Obvious
industry-wide solution: don't be an SCO customer!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:37 AM EST |
The point has already beeen made previously - could it be a hoax, and Darl's
mouth ran away with itself again?
What about Stowell? Well we know how
he seems to like responding to questions on the fly. I wouldn't be surprised if
a journalist calling him to ask about tomorrow's (now today's) lawsuit was the
first he had of the imminent
deadline
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gov
ernment/legalissues/story/0,10801,90686,00.html
After consulting with
its law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, SCO has narrowed down its list
of possible targets to a "handful" of the world's 1,000 largest
corporations, McBride said. "We're going to file it tomorrow. It's sort
of come down to a couple of complaints we have prepared," he said.
McBride declined to offer more details other than to say that the
companies being considered were neither Internet service providers nor
technology companies and that they all had recognizable names.
We're supposed to believe that 24 hours before filing a law
suit, they don't know who they are going to sue?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's a hoax? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
- It's a hoax? - Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:31 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:51 AM EST |
We should be concentrating on any filing comming
from SCOG on the Novell motion to dismiss.
This should be out any day now.
The result of the Novell v SCOG suit will have a
cascading effect on all other Law suits.
Hopefully, the courts will have a ruling for us
before christmas 2010.
HAL9000
just the facts jack, just the facts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nickieh on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:58 AM EST |
| If it's a business of any size, they're using a commercial release of Linux.
Most of the commercial releases are offering coverage. Then the OSDL legal fund
is available, and at this point they're probably all chomping at the bit
to drag Darl & Co. into a courtroom and whomp on them like the Narn Bat Squad.
Then there's the minor issue of showing any grounds to go after end-users vs.
the distributor. Then there's the issue of showing they actually have the
standing to bring suit, given the Novell case in progress.
So what do they
hope to gain from this, other than a "look at the silly monkey" diversion from
the earnings report on Wednesday?
Oh wait, this is SCO, never mind...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:06 PM EST |
I sent PJ the OCR'd Doc-108 in RTF format. I am saving it in searchable PDF
format, and will send it when the save completes.
To whet your appetite, here is the copyright claim from the document.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Copyright Infringement)
173.Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs No. 1-172, above.
174.As set forth above, SCO is the successor in interest to the IBM Related
Agreements and the Sequent Agreements.
175.Despite termination of such Agreements, IBM has continued to reproduce,
prepare derivative works of, and distribute UNIX software, source code, object
code, programming tools, and documentation related to UNIX operating system
technology, and has induced others to do the same.
176. SCO is the owner of copyright rights to UNIX software, source code, object
code, programming tools, documentation related to UNIX operating system
technology, and derivative works thereof. These materials are covered by
numerous copyright registrations
50
issued by the United States Copyright Office (the "Copyrighted
Programs"). These registrations have been obtained by SCO and its
predecessors in interest and are owned by SCO. For example, included among such
registrations (attached as Exhibits H toU) are the following:
Title
Registration Number
Registration Date
H
UNIX Operating System Edition 5 and Instruction Manual
TXU-5 10-028
March 25, 1992
I
UNIX Operating System Edition 6 and Instruction Manual
TXu-51 1-236
April 7, 1992
J
UNIX Operating System Edition 32V and Instruction Manual
TXu-5 16-704
May 15, 1992
K
UNIX Operating System Edition 7 and Instruction Manual
TXu-51 6-705
May 15, 1992
L
Operating System Utility Programs
TXu-30 1-868
November 25, 1987
M
UNIXWARE 7. 1.3
TX 5-787-679
June 11,2003
N
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.0
TX 5-750-270
July 7, 2003
O
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.1
TX 5-750-269
July 7, 2003
P
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.2
TX 5-750-271
July 7, 2003
Q
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.0
TX 5-776-2 17
July 16, 2003
R
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.1ES
TX 5-705-356
June 30, 2003
S
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.2
TX 5-762-235
July 3, 2003
T
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4. 1
TX 5-762-234
July 3, 2003
U
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.2
TX 5-750-268
July 9, 2003
177.SCO and its predecessors in interest created the Copyrighted Programs as
original works of authorship, and, as such, the Copyrighted Programs constitute
copyrightable subject matter under the copyright laws of the United States. The
Copyrighted Programs were automatically subject to copyright protection under 17
U.S.C. § 102(a) when such programs were fixed in a tangible medium of
expression. Copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. § 106 extends to derivative
works which are defined in 17 U.S.C. §101 to include
51
works based on the original work or any other form in which the original work
may be recast, transformed, modified or adapted.
178.Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §410 (c), the certificates of copyright registrations
for each Copyrighted Program constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of
the copyrights and of the facts stated in the certificates. SCO and its
predecessors' registered copyrights in the Copyrighted Programs are entitled to
such statutory presumptions.
179.IBM's breaches of the IBM Related Agreements and the Sequent Agreements and
its post-termination actions have infringed, have induced infringement of, and
have contributed to the infringement of, copyright registrations of SCO and its
predecessors. Such actions have been willful and have been done with knowledge
of the copyright rights of SCO.
180.SCO has been damaged by IBM's conduct and has no adequate remedy at law.
IBM's conduct has caused, and, if not enjoined, will continue to cause,
irreparable harm to SCO. As a result of IBM's wrongful conduct, SCO is entitled
to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and SCO's actual damages and
IBM's profits as a result of the infringing acts pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504
(a), statutory damages to the extent applicable pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 (b)
and enhanced damages, together with attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17
U.S.C. § 505.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Marc Duflot on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST |
http://www.noticiasdot.com/publicaciones/2004/0204/2802/
noticias280204/noticias280204/noticias280204-10.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: beast on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:29 PM EST |
| Noted in the Yahoo SCOX message board:
pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/204cv0013900000009.pdf
It's gone
now.
Plaintiff The SCO Group ("SCO"), by and through counsel, and Defendant
Novell, Inc., by and through counsel, hereby stipulate that SCO may have up to
and including March 5, 2004 in which to file a memorandum in opposition to
Novell's Motion to Dismiss. The parties further stipulate that SCO will not
file any further pleadings in the matter until it files its opposition
memorandum as set forth herein.
---
Delay is the deadliest form of
denial. - J. Northcote Parkinson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Doh! - Authored by: beast on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:37 PM EST |
| Once again, SCO makes this country look like a bunch of fools. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST |
| Today's the day. Where's the SCO annoucement? It hasn't appeared on PR
Newswire yet.
And it's been almost a month since Judge Wells took the
discovery motion under advisement. What's going on there? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST |
One of the responses (about the 8th one) to Halperin's article
(http://www.linuxinsider
.com/perl/story/32990.html) is by
someone who identifies themself as
"harlan_", and is a very personal
and vicious attack on PJ, IMO. Does anyone
know anything about this?
I'm assuming that is from a troll, rather than the
Harlan
that posts here frequently.
Wally Bass
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST |
Or perhaps there could be a fund setup to take action on behalf of all Linux
contributors copyright holders.
Another one from under the bridge.
I realize I'm only the help here but I don't do Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ares_Man on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:56 PM EST |
Wow, there are many replies to this topic so far. What topic has ever had the
most number of replies?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: photocrimes on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Anybody want to bet that SCO would of made their Feb deadline if EV1 had not
bought a license?
I think they were the "lucky" winner and it dragged out past Feb
because they were "talking" about resolutions. I think if EV1 had not
given the impression that they would go both ways, we would of had our suit
filed in Feb.
Now, it's on to the next one on the list. Many speculate it could be
Sherwin-Williams, but I doubt that. They are a very strong company with a lot of
lawyers, I know, I've dealt with them. I think they will stick with a regional
ISP that has recently expanded and may have a tight budget.
They want to pick on someone in a weak defensive stance. There are looking for a
lame duck.
---
//A picture is worth a thousand words//[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST |
Is it sad that im am eagerly waiting to find out who they have decided to sue? I
mean, I cant wait to find out who gets to kick their ass next...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Is EV1 a publicly traded company? Their financials and/or SEC filings may give
a clue to who or what is behind their "decision."
lvteacher[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST |
It's a bit sad to see on Ev1servers board, that people are saying "poor
Marsh/Ev1servers" being pressurized by SCO (the main discussion appears to
be about whether it was right/wrong to cave to SCO).
I think all those people are working on some flawed assumptions.
InformationWeek has already reported that Marsh and McBride attended a
conference, together, yesterday. That doesn't make it sound like Marsh was a
victim, it sounds like a co-conspirator.
Marsh appears to have chosen "SCO Compliance" because somehow he
thinks it will help him sell hosting, or beat on his hosting competitors.
Then we discover, Marsh has some PR coming up based on his newly achieved
"SCO compliant" status. Again this makes it sound more an more like
co-conspirator, rather than victim.
http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/ev1030204.cfm
Ryan Elledge, president of iNET Interactive, said in a post on
webhostingtalk.com today that a pre-recorded interview with Robert Marsh will
air on WHTRadio.com on Wednesday, March 10. Elledge said topics for discussion
will include the SCO licensing issue and the opening of a new EV1Servers data
center that is slated for later this week. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lvteacher on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST |
IANAL.
Whomever gets sued by SCO should ask to have the suit stayed until the RedHat
suit is settled. This action will put the suit in limbo and SCO will not be
able to collect any "IP license fees."
lvteacher[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
And so it seems they have: <a
href="http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/sco030204.cfm">http://thewhir.
com/marketwatch/sco030204.cfm</a>
But they're not saying who. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:55 PM EST |
Didn't SCO mentionned that their PR statements are just free
speech and have no commercial connotations? IIRC, SCO wrote
such things in their legal documents (vs. RedHat and vs. IBM).
But now, doesn't the fact that they tout the "linux legal liability"
as one of the 5 main reasons to run Unixware just contradicts
their affirmative defenses?
IANAL, just my 1 cents
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:00 PM EST |
When these suits are announced I hope that someone (in a
calm and professional manner) will inform those
companies/individuals of the resources available for their
information (and defense?) at groklaw.net. As well as urge
them not to settle out of court, but take on the fight
with SCO - also some information about the various legal
defense funds and various vendor indemnification programs
might be in order.
Someone should write a (sane, non-flamable) letter with
all the above information (PJ ?) and keep it ready to send
it (by email, and certified mail possibly - at least
regular mail as well as email) to the
companies/individuals that get sued.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST |
Internetnews.co
m has a new statement from SCO:
Company spokesperson Blake Stowell
told internetnews.com the announcement would be made "late this afternoon," but
likely before most businesses go home for the evening. Details until then,
however, would be under tight wraps.
That's not much of a statement,
but it's a statement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ares_Man on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
We need an article discussing SCO's "5 Reasons to Choose UNIX over
Linux"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=SCO_To_Sling_a_Lawsuit_at_a_Us
er&story_id=23277
"We haven't publicly disclosed the specific number, but I can say that a
handful of Fortune 1000 companies have taken out a SCO IP license," Stowell
told NewsFactor. "Also, a handful of small and medium-sized businesses have
purchased the license as well," he noted.
SCO is pleased, thus far, with the level of acceptance the license has received,
Stowell said. Of course, not all companies SCO has contacted have chosen to take
out a license, he added, "which is why we have decided to file a
lawsuit."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST |
Article on vnunet...
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1153183
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: izzyb on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:51 PM EST |
| What are you willing to bet that SCO will wait until the
stock market closes
for the day to anounce their "victim".
The suspense is killing me,
but it seems to be
having the desired effect on their stock
price [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:07 PM EST |
You would think that they may really, really, really mean it this time --
really....
It's 3 PM on the right (East) coast and those lefties (sort of) haven't done
anything yet.
Let's face it, Toevarisches, proprietary software is the true and official State
Approved type of software.
Development of Open Source software must be regarded as a hobbyist activity of
the oppressor burgeoise who intend to alienate workers from the profits they
generate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SaveDrury on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:13 PM EST |
i don't understand... did they or did they not file legal papers to sue
company/person X? And if they did, are these documents not public?
I'm suing someone tomorrow for billions - but i'm not telling you who i'm suing?
how does that work?
ianal[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arrg on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:15 PM EST |
It's 3pm and nothing yet. It really floors me that this company can get away
with using our legal system to manipulate the stock price. This seriously is
crossing many lines for me as a consumer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:39 PM EST |
Just in case its right....
Does anyone know if eBay runs Linux? It was a guess here but we dont know if
they are a legit target, whatever THAT means....
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
