|
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
Suing end users is a whole different ball game, and likely more than SCO can
handle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
| Taking bets on no lawsuit tomorrow either... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Taking bets - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST
- Taking bets - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
- Taking bets - Authored by: jasonstiletto on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:44 PM EST
- Taking bets - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:02 AM EST
- Taking bets - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:03 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
| Figures [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST |
Here's a new idea. I will start a thread under each story, as first post, sorry
guys. And here you can put anything new you find. People who want to not
have to go through everything can just go straight here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thread for URLS, Updates - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST
- Thread for URLS, Updates - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST
- Thread for URLS, Updates - Authored by: brendthess on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:41 PM EST
- OT: EV1 member sells shares on ebay - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST
- Thread for URLS, Updates - Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:57 PM EST
- Two law suits filed according to this - Authored by: Gerry on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:21 PM EST
- Darl McBride interviewed by ZDNet's Dan Farber - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:29 PM EST
- Thread for URLS, Updates - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:49 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST |
The emperor is still naked.
-Ehud[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST |
Attention IBM. We are holding 1500 companies hostage. Unless you deliver $5
billion in small unmarked bills, we will sue one company every day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST |
They say "will be part of the filing". That say to me "we
haven't actually filed yet". Also, they didn't say they were delaying the
lawsuit until tomorrow, they are delaying the announcement until tomorrow. But
there is no guarantee that the annoucement will the "we filed a
lawsuit". Couldn't it just as easily be "will will be filing a
lawsuit"?
Typical SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST |
What other reasons for delay are there? Maybe
somebody decided to fold
at the 11th hour? Who knows with
these people? Maybe they were off over the
weekend again
and couldn't get the paperwork done in time. So, 9 AM
Eastern
time.
More like they wanted to pump their stock before
tomorrow morning's lack-of-earnings call tomorrow (and
yes, their stock went
up a lot today).
It also has to be no coincidence that they will
announce who they're going to sue during the conference
call, as it will
detract from the poor quarter.
Classic SCO tactics are at work here.
It's all a PR
spin to keep the stock up when it should really be
continuing to
fall, like it did all last week. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST |
Darl Blinked.
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:23 PM EST |
I wish to support OSDL in its support of SCO's victim.
Please, PJ, point me to where to send a check. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Species8472 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST |
Why would the court waste time on this case until the IBM case is settled? You
got to own it before you sue someone for stealing it Right?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST |
| Tomorrow, Tomorrow I love you. Your'e Always a day away. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:26 PM EST |
Gosh, SCOX is up. What a surprise!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST |
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The
rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to "jam to-day,""Alice objected.
"No it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day; to-day
isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully
confusing."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: IgD on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST |
SCO needs more time to make some offers that "can't be refused"!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: IgD on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:30 PM EST |
| PJ, it would be much easier if you were running Slashcode:P [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:31 PM EST |
| The report found here
quotes Darl as saying that they have already filed suit against some unnamed
party. Of course, the report is third-hand, and it's possible somebody
somewhere misinterpreted something, but it's still curious. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: justjeff on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST |
Somewhere along the way, if I were a reporter, I think that I would have
noticed that Darl is never ever ever ever correct. He is the CEO of his
company. He said we are filing tomorrow (paraphrasing). Within the company,
all of the decisions had to have already been made. The preparations for filing
(making millions of copies of paperwork and distibuting them to the court and
the defendant) is what's done on the last day. How could Darl be wrong about
"filing tomorrow?"
If I were a reporter, every time Darl said anything, I would ask,
"Really?"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST |
Oh yeah seesh We'll tell you today or later today....
Oh maybe we'll just tell you tomorrow....
Ah well we'll just keep it a secret and will bring it
up everytime we have to talk about stocks ;P[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Chugiak on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:41 PM EST |
| Disregard if this has been mentioned before, but I was just checking Pacer and noticed
that the second amended complaint is up, document 108-1. It's a sixty-five page
TIFF. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST |
I noticed they said:
One spokesman for SCOL confirmed that
copyright infingement is one of the claims that willbe a part of the filing.
So copyright infringement will be only part, and maybe only a
small part, of the suit. Hmmm.
So their strategy is to find some SCOG
customer and reinterpret their license so they can claim they violated it, and,
oh yes, throw in some small copyright violation, just for the PR value.
I
predict that contract/license violations will be the bulk of the lawsuit and
copyright ingringement will be a very small part. This way SCOG can loudly
announce they've filed their first copyright infringement lawsuit. While at the
same time, when people complain there is no infringement, SCOG can publicly act
surprised and say "Why are you concentrating on the infringement, this suit is
primarily about contract/license violations". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:43 PM EST |
(Edited repost of earlier post from a few stories back)
It was a hoax!
As of yesterday (Monday), they themselves said they didn't know who they were
going to sue. If they were really going to sue today (Tuesday) or tomorrow
(Wednesday), they would already know who.
It was a hoax!
McBride either thought he could sound tough at that conference on Monday, or
browbeat somebody into buying a license with a short deadline.
It was a hoax!
It's not like he hasn't tried the short deadline tactic a whole lot of times
before - invoices, AIX audits, revoke AIX, revoke IRIX, revoke Dynix, blah,
blah,
It was a hoax!
It's not like he hasn't had his mouth running out of control
before, and SCO have not had to do some fancy mouth-work to try and recover
It was a hoax!
Now it's out a HOAX, that's gained a life of its own. And the HOAX might even
just come true
Scenario #1:
They ain't suing anybody, unless they are forced into by their own PR mistakes.
On Wednesday it will be Thursday, on Thursday it will be Friday, and infinitum.
How long before the press catches on?
Scenario #2:
It begun as a hoax, but may yet turn real... if SCO feels they have painted
themselves into a corner (it's not like that hasn't happened before either)...
they must just file a law suit. It is possible Kevin McBride is typing as
fast as he can into Word right this second!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:47 PM EST |
Why am I reminded of the Cheese Shop Sketch? ( John Cleese and others )
"Do you actually have ANY cheese?"
"no Sir!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: izzyb on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:50 PM EST |
| Excuse me if I don't wait around all day tomorrow like I
did today! What a
joke. I see their stock
climbed nicely today. I guess they needed a little
hype to help pump up
their stock before their earning
report.
No doubt they're hoping that
by announcing the victim at
or just before their earnings report, all the
questions
will be related to the new lawsuit and nobody will notice
they're
riding on a sinking ship. Wouldn't want to
release the name too early or
groklaw might give people
information to help them ask informed questions and
maybe
even forget about the new lawsuit. Worse, maybe
they'll realize
that SCO doesn't have a chance in any of
these lawsuits and one more isn't
going to do anything but
accelerate their sinking ship.
I sure hope
the media is paying attention and doesn't fall
for this crap again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DaveB on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:52 PM EST |
"Okay Darl, who's first?"
"Right"
"What's right?"
"The name"
"What name?"
"No, What's second"
"Who's second?"
"No, Who's first."
"How should I know? What's the name of the first victim?"
"No, What's second."
"WHO'S second??"
"No, Who's first"
"I don't know..."
"...Third victim"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST |
I went to a restaurant near my office one day for lunch. Behind the cash
register was a sign on the wall that said "Free Lunch Tomorrow". So I
came back again the following day. Guess what - the sign still said "Free
Lunch Tomorrow".
Sound familiar?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:56 PM EST |
IANAL, and IANAA (I am not an American) so I am in the
dark here, but ...
It occured to me that with the EV1 license sale TSG is now
clearly violating the GPL with their Linux distribution,
so they could be sued for copyright infringement by all
authors who contributed to Linux. Could there be a class
action law suite for this ?
After all, litigation is their core business, I'm sure
Darl would be happy to "do business" on yet another
front... ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:01 PM EST |
On the Yahoo message board there's speculation that the target would be BP, and
over the SCO Unix shared libraries.
Copying those, if it's against SCO's license, is not permitted of course. Nor
does it have to do anything with Linux - it would not be legal if they copied it
to Windows or Solaris either.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:03 PM EST |
> What other reasons for delay are there? Maybe somebody decided to fold at
the 11th hour?
SCO has been 'discussing' with companies and the threat of filing action was a
bluff. The companies didn't fold, they just told SCO to fsck off.
You can bet that SCO will announce that some fictitious companies have 'settled'
but SCO have agreed to keeping the terms and names secret, and so there is now
no need to proceed with those two and they will pick some more.
Of course the 'settlement' is another bluff (or lie if you prefer) but they will
use this in further 'discussions' with the same and other companies.
Because the name was never announced they can always claim that it was 'someone
else' they were discussing with that settled secretly, when in fact no one has.
It will only be when they have to next announce revenue figures that it will
discovered what 'settlement' actually means.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:04 PM EST |
As noted above, they are not yet taking contributions. I
suggest the following:
1) They should accept PayPal payments. Put the paypal link
on websites such as Groklaw. I will put my money where my
mouth is and make a payment from the Groklaw site.
2) Implement some kind of contribution database that
tracks contributions vs. website. Set targets, and track
current contributions vs. targets & date. Let's try to
set some kind of record for contributions. This can be
fun, and helpful at the same time! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Bon on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:07 PM EST |
Great, I've waited all day for 'vaporfud' as opposed to enjoying reading some
proper fud that PJ will immediantly dismantle.
I have been following
Groklaw for some time now and I really find the community here superb,
methodically disproving all the rubbish SCO come out with. If anyone asks me
about the SCO case (I work heavily with Linux), I point them to Groklaw. Most
contributions are excellent quality, well thought out arguments backed up with
fact and evidence.
Perhaps it's time SCO provided a little fact and
evidence of it's own, because at the moment Groklaw is making them a laughing
stock.
OT slightly, PJ this is my first posting and with regards to them
starting to bitch about you, forget it. They can't touch you for providing fact
mate, all they can do is throw mud. I know it will get you down at times, but
I'm sure the chin is back up as soon as you log on to your 'baby' and see how
much support you really have. Mine included :-)
Well, here's waiting on
tomorrow, or the day after, or whenever. I'm reminded of a quote from Eddie
Izzard, a great English comedian (you know, the transvestite guy?) He was
referring to Microsoft's release schedule..
"You can have it tomorrow,
the day after, next week, next month.. look, you'll have it WHEN we're
ready, Ok???!!!"
(edited slightly...)
Perhaps he should
rewrite it with SCO in mind...
Regards all,
Bon
(My first
time, be kind to me!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:12 PM EST |
Linus: They know they have no copyright ownership in
Linux
Does that mean we'll see Linus suing SCO for copyright
infringement, using OSDL funds? I certainly hope so. Actually, it would be nice
to see more then one of those from Linux copyright holders. Let's change the
game on Darl a little bit... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST |
I hope the company they file against is a Red Hat customer so it can be used as
evidence that SCO is threatening Red Hat's business.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:18 PM EST |
1 drink:
each time SCO announces they're going to sue someone
each time SCO files a new motion in an existing lawsuit
2 drinks:
each time SCO fails to sue someone within the specified time period
each time SCOs new motion is just a reguritation of a previous motion.
3 drinks:
each time someone other company's lawyers make SCO's lawyers look like
incompetent fools
finish your drink:
each time the judge rules against SCO
each time SCO really does file a new lawsuit
buy a 5th of bourbon and climb in
each time SCO wins a lawsuit
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gribnick on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:28 PM EST |
Today is tomorrow's yesterday so what's gonna happen already has and Darl is
just a bad dream right? ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: converted on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:37 PM EST |
The PSCocrastinators Oath
Why put
off until tomorrow, what you can put off
indefinately [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:44 PM EST |
Is it time to re-examine SCO's LKP product for violations of the Kernel authors'
copyrights in the light of SCO's own view of what can and cannot be copyrighted?
Just for fun, since we know that SCO's ideas are bogus anyway.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:50 PM EST |
I think that they (<b>SCO</b>undrels) are playing chicken with not
one but two (or more companies.)
They're clearly using the threat of a lawsuit as sales leverage, what with their
cat and mouse game of "who's it gonna be." Apparently, they think
that it will give them some advantage in their "sales" talks with this
(these) customer(s.)
Given that
1. It's unclear that they <i>can</i> sue, give the Novell suit
2. That they have not demonstrated any copyright violations
3. That they will not fully divulge their IP, other than clearly prior-released
files
it's as clear as mud that they can successfully sue.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:55 PM EST |
1. If SCO could (a) file an end-user lawsuit to boost their stock price, or (b)
thought they could talk about filing a law suit to boost their stock by the same
amount -- which do you think they would choose??
2. If you answer (b) to question 1, why would you think they would ever file a
lawsuit against an end-user??
3. How bad are their results tomorrow going to be??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: merodach on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST |
It isn't too surprising it's been put off - especially since I heard they've
hired a Mr. D. Nukem from the law firm of Three, Dee, Realms.
Last statement from Mr. Nukem was that the suit would be ready when it was
ready.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:00 PM EST |
A Question.
Has anyone here ever seen a company that has been so public about it's letigious
operations before SCO?
RSC
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST
- Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:57 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: PM on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST |
A few years ago I saw a sign outside a bar which proclaimed "Free Beer -
Tomorrow".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: HamonEggs on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:27 PM EST |
Maybe this has been mentioned/asked before, but is SCOG
trying to establish a pattern that will support their
arguments in the RedHat case?
Threaten to sue end users and never actually do it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:30 PM EST |
Since Novell's copyrights block SCO's, and perhaps trump them, I hope Novell is
doing what it did last summer -- privately warn SCO about stepping over the
line.
Could Novell conceivably intervene in any SCO end-user lawsuit to tell the court
SCO doesn't have the rights it claims? Maybe a defendant wouldn't even have to
file an answer?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brendthess on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:40 PM EST |
Take a look at section 190 of the 2nd amended complaint (there is a link above).
Does anyone want to place a small wager that the lawsuit that SCO will
theoretically file tomorrow will be against either Sherwin Williams or Auto
Zone?
Anyone?
---
I am not even vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are you listening to me?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: penhead on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST |
| The two Co's they are suing tomorrow are supposedly SCO Unix
Licensees [news.com.com.com.com.com] - so I guess that's about the end of
the suspense for Joe Linux user.
My guess is that the cases tomorrow will
have absolutely nothing to do with the wider use of Linux as advertised and will
probably be almost 100% contractual.
They probably have a clause in the SCO
Unix license that says you can't use SCO Unix in anything but SCO Unix. SCO no
longer claims that SysV code exists in Linux - as per the amended IBM complaint
- and claiming that a derived work in Linux infringes upon a license for SCO
Unix when the defendant didn't even put it there in the first place seems like
the very definition of a long shot.
Time to change the channel methinks. I
wonder if SCO will patent "a means or method of creating Fear, Uncertainty and
Doubt through numerous interconnected frivolous lawsuits" next ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:07 PM EST |
A yahoo article by Erika Morphy starts out:
"No one can claim
that the SCO Group does not follow through on its promises."
Early
Alzheimer's, perhaps? ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the
jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mrcreosote on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:11 PM EST |
"I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Perhaps SCO Group should become RSN Group. Everything is always going to happen
'Real Soon Now". Or JSW Group (Just You wait). Or YBS Group (You'll Be
Sorry).
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:15 PM EST |
I feel like I'm watching a shell game artist on the streets of NY!!! EV1 has me
spittin mad... if not a co-conspirator then they are complete fools.
Is it just me or does there seem to be a crouching tiger somewhere in the
background just waiting for an end user law suit so it can pounce and finish SCO
once and for all. I hope this is the case or dissapoint will drive me away from
following this any more. Cripe I think I could come back next year and still be
reading the same FUD and legal slow down tactics.
I for one will not miss SCO when they are gone. There used to be entertainment
value but now it just leaves me feeling drained.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RDH on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
| Only craziness can explain craziness. Hence...
This is satire. If the
concept is foreign to you, or if you are completely devoid of a sense of humor,
please do not read any further. Satire is intended to poke fun at an issue or
otherwise make a person think about the issue in a different light. Anyone who
takes this as the literal truth needs to stay away from satire.
**************************************************************
Parker Brothers Announces New Game
Scud News Service
3 March
2004
Dover, Delaware – The Parker Brothers company, long a provider in the
board game industry, has announced the production of their latest offering,
“Litigation Bingo!”
Allan Chancey, vice-president of public relations for
Parker Brothers, released a press statement describing the new
game.
“Litigation Bingo! is played in a similar manner as regular bingo. The
are two major differences upon initial inspection: first, the board is shaped
like the United States, and, second, any number of chips can be placed on a
square (or a state).”
Mr. Chancey also described the variations of the rules
for game play.
“The Caller, the person calling out the affected squares,
states in advance how many chips are actually going to be played. However, The
Caller may at any time either raise or lower the number of chips that will be
used. The game is started by The Caller attempting to coerce the other players
into giving him or her all of their chips in advance. The players may choose to
submit. Those that do are immediately expelled from the game.”
While the
opening instructions seemed a bit confusing at first, the lengthy book of rules
– running well over seven thousand pages with very small print – clarified the
strategy of game play. The interesting aspect of the book is the most of the
144,417 rules reference back to only five clearly detailed rules. The first rule
was covered in no less than 252 pages. However, it seemed to state the same
single terms repeatedly. In an effort to be brief, Mr. Chancey's announcement
cited the above paragraph as the gist of the first rule.
Rule number 2,903
was often cited in other rules. The following is a paraphrase of the rule that
ran in excess of 600 pages.
“The Caller will declare that a chip is to be
placed. However, the players may not react to The Caller until such time as The
Caller actually names the state (or square) that will be utilized. The Caller
may, at any time before definitively declaring the state in play, choose a
completely different state. This may be repeated as many times as The Caller
sees fit. In the event The Caller does truly name a state, The Caller may
declare a 'Do Over' and begin the process anew.”
A third rule was also often
quoted in the text: Rule 71,541.
“The players will be repeatedly harassed by
The Caller in an attempt to give up their chips. The Caller is not restricted to
resorting only to the truth. Vague, threatening language may be employed to
entice the players in relinquishing their chips. Contradictions, distortions,
and flagrant falsehoods will be considered the proper method of cajoling the
players. Players who attempt to entrap The Caller by exposing diametrically
opposed statements will then be subjected to any form of double-talk The Caller
can conjure up at the moment. The player will then be forced to accept the new
statements as having the power to override previous statements, but are not
empowered to alter future statements.”
The rules routinely hinted that the
rules could be changed any time by The Caller, yet it was never made explicitly
clear as to how or why except in those cases already covered. It must be noted
that no mention was made as to how a player may win the game. The entire concept
seems to be predicated on what The Caller may do to extended the length of time
the game may be played without any actual game play commencing.
The press
released ended with Mr. Chancey stating the several million copies of the game
had already been ordered. This figure could not be verified. A call to the main
offices of Parker Brothers resulted in having the words “Do Over” being
constantly stated as an explanation.
Mr. Chancey, himself, took charge of
the telephone call at one point. He stated that seventeen orders consisting of
millions of games had indeed been placed, yet he demurred at specifically naming
the outlets that made the purchases. Thus, it cannot be confirmed that
“Litigation Bingo!” has truly been shipped.
On a final note, Mr. Chancey did
offer a surprising aspect about the game.
“We fully expect a single game to
last anywhere from one to five years, depending on the the stubbornness of the
players. The Caller is not expected to play any real, meaningful role in the
game.”
(CL) 2004 RDH, Ltd. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: NastyGuns on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:07 PM EST |
A couple of thoughts:
(1) SCOG is still trying to determine which of the two companies on 'their list'
has the greatest chance of buying them out when they sue them. As I see it, this
is the last ditch chance(s) they have of getting outta this situation. Of course
any company that does buy them out I think will feel some wrath, let alone being
labeled the largest idiots in the world, even over EV1. OTOH, if the buying
company is full of necrophilics, they would still be able to get something of
supposed value for the money. A dead dying corpse.
(2) A desire that Judge Wells finally releases her ruling first thing in the
morning. Of course, I see that as being poetic justice but not a very likely
occurance.
(3) Is it possible that with the information that has been collected here on
Groklaw, that it could be collated together, put into a major report and copies
sent both to the FTC and SEC, along with a full listing of petition names
requesting investigation into the whole situation?
(4) Anyone know if it's possible to determine who is selling their shares of
SCOG stock? For some reason, I'm thinking I read that Dark Darl and company
could start selling their stocks starting yesterday? Could someone confirm
please.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST |
<sarcasm>
Well, this is a shock I must say
</sarcasm>
I have been thinking about this whole thing ( a dangerous thing, I must admit),
and I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Boies & Co are not being
cooperative with Darl & Co.
One of my best friends is an attorney, and she explained filing suits to me thus
(paraphrased):
"If I take your case, I must believe there is a basis in law for your suit.
To do less will subject me to sanctions by the bar and the courts"
In other words, if Boise & Co see through all this ( they must, one thinks),
and feel there is no legally sustainable case, then they are legally and duty
bound to refuse to file.
Perhaps Darl & Co might like to get rid of them (and their high price), but
if that was announced, the stock would tank immediately (for ne real reason,
just as it is high for no real reason).
But do join in with your views.
Just my $0.02
---
Today's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: afore on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:42 PM EST |
| According to this news article, SCO is announcing TWO new lawsuits tomorrow.
http://www.inter
netnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3320401 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:51 PM EST |
So SOCx is starting their law suits to sue end users (maybe) and Linux community
are prepared to defend itself. Well I'm a believer in the old addage that best
defense is a good offense. So the Linux/Open Source community needs to take
action against SCOx. The copyright holders for OSS it seems to me that if they
can put together a reliable OS and numerous software products, they should be
fully capable to coordinate a lawsuit against SCOx to protect their copyrights.
Could this not be done as a class action? Perhaps an OSS Copyright Legal
Protection Fund could be started. I for one would be willing to donate (thought
I'm hardly a rich man), but it seems to me that those companies that profit off
of OSS would/should be more thatn willing to also contribute to insure their
bottom line. Lest the Linux/OSS are willing to have their work usurped by the
Canopy/SCOx, this is but the first battle.
another one from under the bridge.
I realize I'm only the help here bur I don't do Windows! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:16 PM EST |
I suppose the question has been raised a million times, but was EV1 a sucker or
a shill? SCO seems to be doing what anyone would.... bail water until that
becomes untenable. Then just bail. EV1 just passed over a larger bucket, but
how long can that last? I suppose that depends on how deeply you believe in the
conspiracy theories.
Another troubling analogy (for me at least) has to do with the number of fronts
SCO can fight at one time.... I would think that they are already extended
about as far as they can go. Will they keep getting just-in-time infusions of
cash from vendors who want to rid the world of oss evil and call it a licesnse
fee? Tomorrow will be interesting. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST |
EV1 has explained the reasoning behind their purchase of SCO licences. It sounds
to me like a thinly veiled standover setup; "pay up or we'll make sure it costs
you - even if you win."
"Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO
has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even
if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in
the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our
services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our
decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent
that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO
with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every
legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case .. who would
have figured that one) There is significcant risk on both sides of this
equation."
http://forum.ev1servers.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42270&
;perpage=25&pagenumber=1[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: danelray on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:10 AM EST |
I remember reading about this "sale" in 1995-1996.
IBM and others declined to purchase since Novell retained ownership while the
buyer received the obligation to manage all the licensing subject to Novell's
ownership and the obligation to extend/improve Unix.
It was a purchase of obligation rather than a purchase of ownership.
Back then, Novell was the "bad guy".
Novell's ownership was very tainted. Everyone knew that there had to be huge
limitations on Novell's rights since
1) ATT had restricted the rights,
2) ATT's rights were suspect since the work was largely an amalgam of stolen
works from the trusting academics of that time. The BSD lawsuit was just the
tip of the iceberg.
It was widely believed that Novell would have to revise the offer since nobody
with the right mix of stupidity and money had shown up.
That revision was considered impossible, since Novell would have to spend
heavily just to define what it was selling.
But Novell did not have enough money or time to find out.
Then, at the last second, one buyer showed up.
It seems to me that in 1995-1996 Novell had no Unix property defined well enough
to sell.
The ultimate problem may be that Novell did not and does not want to admit that.
That is a TRADE SECRET that I infer Novell has.
A pertinent question is: Did Novell commit fraud, or was the buyer just
greedy/stupid, or both?
Novell was reluctant to register copyrights because they were not certain of the
validity of any of them.
The addenda in the contract imply some copyrights existed. Logically,
"some" could be "zero".
From Novell's point of view, the contract sold a burden and it had no idea why
the buyer was concerned with copyrights.
The buyer bought "prestige" at being the front-man for Unix.
The buyer had and has no need of copyrights to fulfill the burden it purchased.
From the buyer's point of view, the contract gave it everything it wanted.
Without a meeting of the minds, are some parts of this contract invalid?
ATT had registered copyrights yet had been forced to back off enforcement in the
BSD case.
BSD could be an amicus curiae in this case.
However, BSD might lose some "valuable" tainted property if it did
so.
The buyer is absolutely certain that it owns absolutely all of them.
The buyer is absolutely certain that it owns everything in the world by some
sort of extension.
So the buyer registered copyrights that they claim to have "purchased"
from Novell.
In self-defense, Novell registered the copyrights it probably still believes it
may never have owned outright.
To transfer the copyrights legally, Novell would have to spend a huge amount of
money just to verify what it had owned in 1995.
Clearly, those copyrights would be limited, since ATT had never been able to
legally grant unlimited rights to Novell.
IANAL, but shouldn't any legal transfer identify the exact copyrights and
enumerate the limitations?
Did ATT enumerate the limitations when it transferred copyrights to Novell?
Was that transfer legally clean?
Novell is certain that it bought a burden from ATT.
That is why they sold part of the burden.
The only thing remaining is still a burden.
The buyer hopes that all records are destroyed or missing and that all human
memory is gone in order to claim unlimited rights with no burden.
I read recently that a huge amount of the code for Unix came out of Australian
universities.
Anyway, the comment said SCO acquired copies of old releases from an Australian
university.
SCO has definitely not exerted due diligence in verifying intellectual property
claims.
In fact, they claim more rights than ATT claimed.
Presumably, ATT did not transfer more Unix rights to Novell than it claimed.
Novell knows or anticipates that the cost of verification is prohibitive.
That is why Novell retained the ultimate licensing rights.
The buyer and now SCO refused to believe there were any limitations.
The buyer and now SCO bought the obligation of managing the licensing of Unix
subject to Novell's ownership.
That limitation is in the contract.
That is why IBM did not buy it.
About 10% of the bulletin-board comments in 1996 pointed this out. 90% thought
the way SCO does.
The 10% seemed to have intimate knowledge of the contract. The 90% went on
rumor.
IANAL, but since these license fees are in dispute particularly in regard to the
conscious contributors to Linux, who are the owners much like policyholders of a
mutual insurance company own the company, shouldn't these conscious owners have
100%(or more) claim against all license fees charged by an
"unconscious" contributor who has established no specific property
claim. Anyway, the damage is real. Somebody should be in position to
competently handle it.
Each individual contributor has claim on any commercial use of his/her
contribution.
Each individual contributor can deny commercialization of his/her contribution.
No individual contributor automatically authorizes use of his/her contribution
in any product with a license fee.
In fact, express authorization is required for use in a product with a license
fee.
A licensor is subject to litigation by one and all of the individual
contributors.
It is impossible for a licensor legally to charge a fee for a version of Linux
containing its "stolen property".
To do so would violate the authorizations of all other contributors.
The "stolen property" can be taken back in one simple action by
communicating with Eben Moglen
and then licensed separately to each Linux user. This is especially easy to
implement in software.
The "licensing fee" appears to be more like "protection
money", not a real licensing fee.
The product is licensed by the real distributor (Red Hat or Suse or others).
Then SCO enters the scene to charge "protection money" to the
licensee.
Isn't that how organized crime operates? Don't they say things like "it's
our turf"?
The Attorney General of the US seems remiss not to notice this issue. Maybe he
supports it.
Potentially, Linus Torvalds personally could bill SCO for $1 million per
"licensee/protection victim" as a punitive settlement.
The charge is for using his personal copyrighted intellectual property in a
"commercial product/criminal enterprise" without authorization.
The others could attempt to do the same.
I am amazed how far this goes in court in the US. The international community
obviously is going open-source for this sort of software and no action within
the borders of the US will stop it. If anything, this action accelerates the
adoption of open-source globally. The damage will be limited to the US. Our
slowness to adopt open-source will push us down. Microsoft is destined to
vanish as a proprietary-OS company.
Sun will vanish too unless it open-sources Java. SCO is dead already.
---
danelray[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bingo... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:44 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:54 AM EST |
Look on cnet here
http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5168637.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:58 AM EST |
How about this scenario:
[tinfoil]
SCO sues firm X (really under
control of SCO/Microsoft)
SCO/Firm X makes sure SCO will win, as firm X does
not want to win
SCO gets "victorius"
SCO profits as it has "won"
the Linux case in court
[/tinfoil]
Just because I am paranoid
does not mean they are not out to get me...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST |
For a lot of reasons, targeting an end consumer would not be a good idea for
SCO. They would have done it by now.
At this point it is not likely to scare up fees and nuisance money. There are
defense funds and indemnification out there so no risk for the wise consumer.
It will also inspire a class action defense and counter claim. It is also
likely to inspire government scrutiny. It will also inspire quick injunctive
relief. They are already tainted by their IBM failure. They would have to
disclose up front in light of their discovery inadequeacy in IBM. All anyone
has to do now is wait for SCO to continue their suit without foundation against
IBM. They no longer have their initial claim. This taints their new and
remaining claims as desperate, incredible last gasps. It also proves IBM's
counterclaims. (SCO waits for Judge Wells Order, will it be merciful or will it
be devastating? This could be over tomorrow or in 2006.)
They are not in privity with end users. (No direct contractual relationship).
Remember the argument that a reader who buys a book with plaigiarized material
is not liable. The author and the seller would be. So a claim against an end
user is even more far-fetched or frivolous, to use that legally fraught word.
Then there is that nasty GPL. The end user suit would move too quickly and
not in a favorable fashion. This does not suit the FUD purpose of SCO.
Given the inexplicable EV1 licensing, SCO may have lined up a friendly or soft
target end user who may settle or roll over. SCO would suggest this as a good
example or warning for other top corporations to pay up their nuisance value. O
how they inspire wild suspicions!
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:13 AM EST |
Isn't it about time some Attorney-Generals stepped in and told SCO to wait until
they clarify their copyright ownership before they attempt to sue anybody for
breaching their alleged copyright.
Make the directors personally liable - that should make them shut up until they
have a REAL case (if ever).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:36 AM EST |
Of course they delayed it to coincide with the conference call.
Imagine the questions they would be faced with after the OSS community and the
press had a 24 hour headstart analyzing their choice of target.
And on the day of the call, they would have to share press time with their
target company's response.
If I were their PR guy, there's no way I would allow them to make an
announcement the day before the conference call.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lack of control. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:45 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: DK on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:50 AM EST |
| I had a good laugh at this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:43 AM EST |
We've seen Wimpy:
"I will gladly sue you tomorrow for a Press Release today."
Is Bluto (yeah, stuff it, Disney, he was Bluto first) Boies running around
trying to bully companies into paying a ransom on Swee' Pea?
I keep waiting for Popeye to pop the top on the spinach (GPL? Groklaw?).
I just can't figure this SCOtoon out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nattt on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:45 AM EST |
I'm listening to: http://news.com.com/1601-2-5168663.html
and Darl talking about the GPL, and how he'd want it modified to be more like
the BSD licence. Now I take that to mean that he wants to be able to use GPL
software without contributing the derived source back to the world, just like
how he believes IBM cannot let out the source of their "derived"
works. He
wants to have his cake and eat it. He is repeatedly miss-characterising the
GPL in a way that's even more viral than SCO's own interpretation of their
inheritc UNIX licence agreements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:48 AM EST |
The webcast of the SCO teleconference just went live for a few moments. Two guys
were talking about pot and 12 cent hamburgers. Anyone else heard it? Wierd.
The webcast registration is at
http://ir.sco.com/MediaRegister.cfm?MediaID=10977[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: trevmar on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:09 AM EST |
The newswires say that SCO has sued Autozone Inc, ticker AZO
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AZO&d=t
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:34 AM EST |
AutoZone's 2nd Quarter Fiscal 2004 Conference Call
March 3, 2004, 10:00 AM ET
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=AZO&script=1010&i
tem_id=852752
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bete noire on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:56 AM EST |
Help me out here, please.
1) Why would SCO be suing SCO Unix Licensees? Isn't that like immediate
punishment of the few organizations who ponied up like they were supposed to
(according to SCO)?
2) Is everyone on Wall Street as intelligent, as genuine, and as substantial as
a bowl of Crunch Berries cereal?
Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
