Authored by: johan on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:18 PM EST |
So we still don't know who it is. Figures.
Does anybody know anything more about this supposed deadline they missed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:18 PM EST |
Didn't all 1500 say "No deal?"
At this point, Boise has to sue someone even if it's pro-bono. If not, he will
have lost all credibility.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: haegarth on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST |
Getting serious, is he?
The air is trembling with fear ;-)
---
Where do you want to SCO today?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST |
At least that's my prediction. Per SEC fillings, SCO makes lubricants not IP or
software. So out goes the REAL competition.
The lawsuit was just a big understanding...you know...Utah to English dialect
differences.
http://www.scoxpetro.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST |
PJ: Getting mysql connect errors when trying to access Groklaw.
First time since last Autumn.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST |
Wow - Boise is making a comeback finally. Been on a long holiday somewhere has
he? Or did he just not want to get involved except at the dying thrash.
Oh well time will tell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST |
At what point are the U.S. courts going to put a muzzle on this fool? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST |
someone should somehow get this to compile into reality
int
MAX_CONCURRENT_LAWSUITS= 3;
or, better yet
bool
SCO_ADMITS_THEYRE_SCHNOOKS= true;[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST |
We already have SCO saying that their IP is in Linux, but refusing to say
exactly what they claim as their IP.
For their next move, I predict they'll announce a lawsuit, but won't say who
they are suing. Nobody will be able to find any evidence of such a lawsuit, and
there will be no news of the "lawsuit" progress except in SCO press
releases.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:54 PM EST |
"McBride indicated that lead SCO attorney David Boies [who
represented the Department of Justice in its antitrust case against Microsoft]
of the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP would make the final
call.
I'm surprised Boies is still involved in this suit. I'd
have thought that he would want to get himself out of this loser mess.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
Well, they've managed to give their stock a boost. Up 9.37% today. Is that
really all it takes? Mr. Failing_company calls up the media and tells them that
tomorrow he's going to call them again and tell them that he's going to sue
someone sometime and bam! his stock shoots up?
Weird.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
Found on the SCO website on a page called 'Corrections in the News' in rebuttal to an
article called 'AT&T Trips Up SCO':
'Fact
SCO
has never claimed to own all additions to or versions of UNIX that were ever
made by companies that licensed UNIX source code or that the IBM developed file
system for AIX now belongs to SCO. SCO has publicly stated that while certain
products and additions are owned by the respective UNIX licensee, SCO retained
rights (as written in the UNIX software sub-licensing agreements) as to how
these products are distributed or used, including confidentiality
restrictions.'
Could this be the fabled 'counterpoint' service
offered by Rant for Rent Rob in action?
--- Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
"We've been in talks for several months with and both of them said 'no
deal.'"
Hopefully this means that the two companies are ready and willing to put up a
fight.
Although, the fight should be something along the lines of, "We got Linux
from RedHat, talk to them. SCO is in dispute with IBM and Novell, as well, over
their supposed 'ownership' of UNIX. That needs to be settled first."
Later
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
SCOG stock has gained over a dollar so far today. Apparently, the
announcement had its intended effect, so no need to actually go ahead and sue
(which would be dangerous). :)
Although, according to this article, they have
sued someone, but "[t]he identity of the end-user was not released." Is that
even possible? How do you file suit secretly? Specific evidence in a case can
be kept confidental and secret, but surely the fact that a lawsuit has or has
not been filed is a matter of public record? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
It's gonna be good! Big stock comeback!
The reason they have two choices is that there is only
two sides on the quarter they have. Maybe its a silver dollar
because its Utah. What a load.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST |
I'd LOVE to be the first victim.....PLEASE PICK ME!
As I know that SCO reads this site, post a phone or e-mail where I can contact
you to begin proceedings.
Let's just make this easy on you too, I'd stipulate everything in the kernel and
all the other stuff in the FC1 distro.... No need for a long and drawn-out
discovery phase.
Let's just get right to court too, none of this hogwash waiting around with lots
of FUD, because I think you'll loose on the merits in about 5 min.... I'm
prepared to go tommorrow, my suit's been drycleaned too...
Or are you folks scared of really going before the judge?...
Contact me back, I look forward to hearing from you to be your first or second
victim.
Danny D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jre on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST |
[the conference call begins]
"So, Darl, how are your quarterly
results?"
"Never mind that, let me tell you about our new
licensee!"
"I mean, did you make any money or
anything?"
"Hey, did I tell you who we're suing? It's
big!"
"Because we were wondering about SCO's profitability,
what with the legal fees, and all the companies on your list telling you to go
pound sand, and all ..."
"What's that over in the corner? An
eagle?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sbungay on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST |
I wonder why more of the 1500 haven't launched legal action against SCO?
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rand on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST |
"We will announce which one it will be late tomorrow morning or early
tomorrow afternoon."
It's mid-afternoon right now in Utah. His watch must be set to whatever
timezone is out in the middle of the Pacific.
---
carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST |
The day grows late here in the east, and no news of a filing of a lawsuit
against a large corporation has yet to hit the wires. Further, the NYSE has
closed for the day, and the lack of an announcement is not surprising, as SCOG
has seemingly timed every one of their actions to prop up their stock price.
(Today it is up a little over a point to $13.42, which by percentage is a large
jump for them.)
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that SCOG has used this latest PR barrage
to get folks to once again to purchase shares of their stock. IOW, the mere
threat of the lawsuit is what they intended.
Who knows what the rest of the day and the morrow shall bring -- perhaps SCOG
will actually file a lawsuit against a corporation, perhaps not. It seems that
they are conducting a campaign of barratry in the press. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:03 PM EST |
now 5:00 pm in Toronto and so far no sign of the other foot. This is like
watching a contuous loop of Geraldo unearthing 'Al Capone's
vault'.
*sigh*
--- Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:04 PM EST |
We have examples of millions of lines of code copied directly from our UNIX
into Linux, We just can't show you any.
IBM has revealed our trade secrets,
we just don't know what they are until we can look at all code IBM has ever
produced.
We have sold hundreds of licenses for valuable SCO IP. Well
three, maybe four. Check our SEC and Court filings, you might find some clues
there.
We have sued a Linux end user, we just can't say who.
Is
this some form a charades or a Utah guessing game that I have never heard
of?
"Neither company is in the technology business."
"both are
major firms that are names anyone would recognize."
"They are
also,businesses that were on our list of approximately 1,500 companies that we
sent warnings to about their use of Linux in 2003. We've been in
talks for
several months with and both of them said 'no deal.'"
Their names begin with
the letter 'Q'.
OK I made that last one up!
The first SCO licensee to
guess correctly gets a "avoid one lawsuit" card, a free trip to Las Vegas, and a
chance to buy a license to use even more valuable SCO IP!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:05 PM EST |
I still think it's amazon.com...
-jb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:21 PM EST |
Well it's 22:17 GMT over here and nothing yet?
I notice that the SCOX price has risen 10% over the day.
That's not a bad days work for the SCO spin doctors.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:22 PM EST |
> They are also businesses that were on our list of approximately 1,500
companies that we sent warnings to about their use of Linux in 2003. We've been
in talks for several months with and both of them said "no deal."
And
with that statement, McBride himself has just made the connection between SCO's
earlier warning letters and the current threatened lawsuit, thus proving the
validity of Red Hat's prediction of harm, and motion to add new
evidence.
SCO's lawyers must hate it when McBride speaks to the press.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:23 PM EST |
1) SCOX. After all, as Caldera they sold and distributed Linux based solutions.
They still distribute GPL based products and the Linux kernel and source code
to their past customers. I think this target is ripe. They don't appear to be
involved in technology anymore either, I believe they are a law firm or
something like that.
2) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP - now that would
be fun too :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST |
Why doesn't someone call Mistress Cleo?
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST |
I thought that to maintain your copyright you had to vigorously defend all
violations. By SCO chosing only a single company to go after aren't they
shirking their responsibility as a copyright holder (assuming that they actually
did own the copyrights for a moment). The selective litigation doesn't seem
reasonable. You'll let this person (or company) get away with violating your
copyright, but not this other one?![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:35 PM EST |
Does anyone know at what point it becomes illegal for them to continue down this
road? I saw an interview of Darl saying they would not return any of the
licensing money if they lost in court. That strikes me as extortion/fraud.
Can I start sueing people over code used in Linux? I have no real claims to it
either, but I can make some up if it will make me a quick buck and I won't get
in trouble for it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST |
Link
--- Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mbaehr on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST |
It seems SCO would like to keep us all on the edges of our seats just a bit
longer:
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=48344
"SCO Postpones Announcing Customer Lawsuit Until Wednesday"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST |
Questions to groklaw.net people!
How many times do we have to play this sick game with SCO?
If they sue a company that is running Red Hat won't that essentially make Red
hat's case in Delaware?
I suspect SCO will not reveal the name of the company, just as they never
revealed the magical mystery SCO IP license-buying losers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dracoverdi on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST |
Tomorrow's Headline:
SCO accidentally Sues Self
In an unanticipated turn of
events resulting from a clerical error, alleged Unix provider SCO has sued
itself for copyright infringement. According to sources inside SCO, the
surprising action resulted from confusion on the part of SCO corporate lawyers
about whether or not Caldera and SCO are different companies. Industry analysts
agreed that although apparently bizarre, the action is consistent with past SCO
behavior
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST |
More musings on the identity:
Does not use Linux distribution
purchased from Suse (Novell issues), RedHat (indemnified), HP (indemnified), IBM
(just because).
They'll probably get someone who's Linux installs are from
downloads or home-brewed to avoid distributor "entanglements". The popular
press already thinks people who download software for free are pirates
anyway.
Not a technology company (as they've said), it's got to be a more
technically gullible company. (Everyone's Internet not withstanding)
US
based company. (SCO's not doing well in courts elsewhere)
It'll be a company
who's currently profitable. (The victim's gotta have money and not have their
back to a wall.)Not the US Government such as LBL, DOD, NSA, etc. (They're
stupid but not THAT STUPID!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST |
Off hand, and mostly because TSG seems to love controversy and getting the
public riled up. I'm leaning towards JustSports being the target. They were
plucky enough to speak up and tell the press exactly what they thought of TSG's
antics.
Squeaky wheel gets the shotgun^Wlawsuit.
a not logged in piraeus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shadesfox on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:10 PM EST |
Will they go after another big name and see if they can't get more general
publicity or go after someone smaller in hopes of settling and showing some
victory for their investors and inflate their stock prices? They aren't going
for a tech business probably because everyone there knows of the defence funds
set up by OSDL and friends, but Mom and Dads book store uses linux and they get
sued, will they know about it?
If SCO is using logic, they will have to target someone relitively small and not
tech oriented.
Then again, we've seen how much stock SCO puts in logic.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST |
SCO sues Caldera, for distributing UNIX code in Caldera Linux
Caldera countersues SCO, for breach of the GPL, and copyright infringement by
distributing Linux after GPL termination.
Lawyers for SCO: Heise, Boies, Brent O. Hatch, Kevin McBride
Lawyers for Caldera; Kevin McBride, Brent O. Hatch, Boies, Heise
SCOX stock up to $14.
Brian Skiba announces price target of $100/per share.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST |
SCO prospones trails.
also there is a note that it is also copyright
infringement.
Now it is before stated that a
copyright case can only be
started when the copyright is registrated with the copyright
office. Am i
right? So sco can't add copyright infringnement isn't it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST |
Forgive me if this has already been posted.
There's a web site called "hosts4porn" that reviews "adult
friendly" web hosting companies. They review various
adult content hosting companies, among them names such as
SexTracker, Sexy Servers, Erotihost, PornResource,
XXXHosting, XXXWebHosting, XXXISP, XXXStorage, Sex.com and
EV1.net. Host4porn quotes
EV1.net's "head surfer" (CEO? President?) Robert
Marsh:
"And, while Marsh is
certainly prepared to outline the
benefits EV1Servers can
offer to an adult hosting
customer, he is just as ready
to recognize the
important role adult Web site operators
play in the
company's business.
"Adult customers represent a significant
proportion of
EV1Servers' user base," he says. "I
can't give you
exact
stats, because
we don't review and rate content hosted on
our network.
But I can tell you that adult users are
highly valued
members of our community."
However, if one visits the EV1.net they have a
section
titled, "Child Surf" which is a filtering service
for web
surfers. It states the following:
"[..] our own personnel continually search for
potentially offensive sites that need to be blocked
and we
accept submissions from our users regarding sites that
should be blocked.[..]"
Isn't this
a hypocritical stance? After all, the CEO
himself
stated that
adult customers represent a "significant
proportion" of EV1's
server user base. While I understand
that one part of their business is
hosting
services, and the other part is web surfing
services, aren't they stating they
will be cancelling-out the
services of their
hosting customers, for the benefit of it's surfing
customers? Isn't this a bit backward, even
hypocritical?
Also, isn't the money they paid to SCO for licenses
(partially)
made from offering services to porn peddlers?
Draw your own
conclusions...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:53 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
"Although SCO will only bring action against one company tomorrow, the other
company on the short list will be sued in time, McBride said."
Isn't this
the defination of fear, uncertinity and doubt?
I.E. Here's the list. We are
after one now. And you might be next. BOO!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: odysseus on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:56 PM EST |
"Not an IT company" - As any IT company would juat laugh in their
face, so they need to pick on someone with a total lack of IT savvy who will
either capitulate or not be able to properly defend themselves when the
tech-speak starts flying...
"An existing UNIX/SysV licensee" - In other words just another
contract claim, NOT a real LINUX copyright infringement suit.
Yawn...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:38 PM EST |
I bet it is Google - underneath they have great technology but you could say
that since they're not in the business of selling that technology as their
product that they're "not in the technology business."
But trying to read the SCOG tea leaves is always an art, never a science.
---
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: prammy on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:35 PM EST |
hmm if or when these companies sued, cant they just say "well SCO has not
proven that they actually own this IP that they are suing us over nor will they
allow us to see this 'supposed infringement' under an NDA where we can rectify
the problem if it exists." ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Night Flyer on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST |
Presuming that Boise et al are competent lawyers, who value their reputations, I
expect that they would not start a lawsuit that they clearly could not win --
irrespective of what SCO might be pressuring them to do.
In my opinion, no lawsuit has been launched, because they haven't found an easy
marque.
Taking into account the suit from Red Hat, winning is absolutely imperative (to
Boise et al and SCO). If SCO cannot show that some company(ies) are using its
code improperly, SCO will lose multiply (to Red Hat, the company(ies) they sue,
in Australia, in Germany, etc.) Then, SCO has to face IBM.
I expect that, because of GROKLAW, Novell, IBM, groups in Germany and Australia,
there is a diminished field of easy marques for them to select from.
My bet is that they will look for a company that has actually done something
improper, not specifically related to Linux Kernel, but more likely related to
SCO's proprietary Unix libraries being used to run Unix programs on Linux.
(Small stuff, compared to the FUD we have endured.)
-------------------------------------------
Once when I was sick, and home from work, I watched a day-time Soap Opera. This
is better by far.
-------------------------------------------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit; Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST |
Eenie, Meany, Miney SCO
Darl, Keven, and the boys... you know...
Stupid Law suits make's 'em go....
Eenie, Meany, Miney SCO!
Ok.. so it's late. ;-)
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|