|
|
| Who's Up First? - A Parody |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:42 PM EST
|
Groklaw reader Nick has done a parody of Abbott and Costello's Who's on First ( http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml )with a slant on who's going to be sued first. Several others have done other parodies as comments under the prior story, but this one was too long as a comment and I didn't want you to miss it. We might as well enjoy a good laugh. Enjoy.
*****************************************************
Who's Up First?
Reporter: I hear you’re gonna sue somebody. Who’re you gonna sue?
SCO: Well, let's see, we have on the list to sue, Who's up first, What's up second, I Don't Know is up third...
Reporter: That's what I want to find out.
SCO: I say Who’s up first, What's up second, I Don't Know's up third.
Reporter: Are you the CEO?
SCO: Yes.
Reporter: You gonna be the spokesperson too?
SCO: Yes.
Reporter: And you don't know the company’s names?
SCO: Well I should.
Reporter: Well then who’s up first?
SCO: Yes.
Reporter: I mean the company’s name.
SCO: Who.
Reporter: The company up first.
SCO: Who.
Reporter: The first company.
SCO: Who.
Reporter: The company paying...
SCO: Who is up first!
Reporter: I'm asking YOU who’s up first.
SCO: That's the company’s name.
Reporter: That's who's name?
SCO: Yes.
Reporter: Well go ahead and tell me.
SCO: That's it.
Reporter: That's who?
SCO: Yes.
PAUSE
Reporter: Look, you gotta first company?
SCO: Certainly.
Reporter: Who's paying first?
SCO: That's right.
Reporter: When you get paid by the first company every month, who gives the money?
SCO: Every dollar of it.
Reporter: All I'm trying to find out is the company’s name up first.
SCO: Who.
Reporter: The guy that gets...
SCO: That's it.
Reporter: Who pays the money...
SCO: He does, every dollar. Sometimes the CEO’s wife comes down and pays it.
Reporter: Who's wife?
SCO: Yes.
PAUSE
SCO: What's wrong with that?
Reporter: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first company, how do they sign the name?
SCO: Who.
Reporter: The CEO.
SCO: Who.
Reporter: How does he sign...
SCO: That's how he signs it.
Reporter: Who?
SCO: Yes.
PAUSE
Reporter: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name up first.
SCO: No. What is up second.
Reporter: I'm not asking you who's up second.
SCO: Who’s up first.
Reporter: One company at a time!
SCO: Well, don't change the names around.
Reporter: I'm not changing nobody!
SCO: Take it easy, buddy.
Reporter: I'm only asking you, who's the company up first?
SCO: That's right.
Reporter: Ok.
SCO: All right.
PAUSE
Reporter: What's the company’s name up first?
SCO: No. What is up second.
Reporter: I'm not asking you who's up second.
SCO: Who’s up first.
Reporter: I don't know.
SCO: He's up third, we're not talking about them.
Reporter: Now how did I get on third?
SCO: Why you mentioned the name.
Reporter: If I mentioned the third company’s name, who did I say is paying third?
SCO: No. Who's paying first.
Reporter: What's up next?
SCO: What's up second.
Reporter: I don't know.
SCO: He's up third.
Reporter: There I go, back on third again!
PAUSE
Reporter: Would you just stay on the third company and don't go off it.
SCO: All right, what do you want to know?
Reporter: Now who's paying third?
SCO: Why do you insist on putting Who up third?
Reporter: What am I putting up third.
SCO: No. What is up second.
Reporter: You don't want who up second?
SCO: Who is up first.
Reporter: I don't know.
SCO & Reporter Together:Third company!
PAUSE
Reporter: Look, you gotta fourth company to sue?
SCO: Sure.
Reporter: The fourth company’s name?
SCO: Why.
Reporter: I just thought I'd ask you.
SCO: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.
Reporter: Then tell me who's paying fourth.
SCO: Who's paying first.
Reporter: I'm not... stay out of that! I want to know what's the guy's name in fourth?
SCO: No, What is up second.
Reporter: I'm not asking you who's up second.
SCO: Who’s up first!
Reporter: I don't know.
SCO & Reporter Together: Third company!
PAUSE
Reporter: The fourth company’s name?
SCO: Why.
Reporter: Because!
SCO: Oh, he's fifth.
PAUSE
Reporter: Look, You gotta sixth name?
SCO: Sure.
Reporter: The company’s name?
SCO: Tomorrow.
Reporter: You don't want to tell me today?
SCO: I'm telling you now.
Reporter: Then go ahead.
SCO: Tomorrow!
Reporter: What time?
SCO: What time what?
Reporter: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's sixth?
SCO: Now listen. Who is not sixth.
Reporter: I'll break your arm, you say who’s up first! I want to know what's the sixth company’s name?
SCO: What's up second.
Reporter: I don't know.
SCO & Reporter Together: Third company!
PAUSE
Reporter: Gotta a seventh?
SCO: Certainly.
Reporter: The seventh’s name?
SCO: Today.
Reporter: Today, and tomorrow's sixth.
SCO: Now you've got it.
Reporter: All we got is a couple of days on the list.
PAUSE
Reporter: You know I'm an investor too.
SCO: So they tell me.
Reporter: I get with my broker to do some fancy investing, he gives me some advice about a heavy hitting company. Now the heavy hitting company uses Linux. When he uses Linux, me, being a good investor, I’m going to make sure this company isn’t going to get sued. So I pick up the phone and ask this company if they are the first company being sued, and they say Yes. So I’m talking to who?
SCO: Now that's the first thing you've said right.
Reporter: I don't even know what I'm talking about!
PAUSE
SCO: That's all you have to do.
Reporter: Is to make sure this is the first company.
SCO: Yes!
Reporter: Now who's got it?
SCO: Naturally.
PAUSE
Reporter: Look, if I’m talking to the first company, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?
SCO: Naturally.
Reporter: Who?
SCO: Naturally.
Reporter: Naturally?
SCO: Naturally.
Reporter: So I pick up the phone and I talk to Naturally.
SCO: No you don't, you talk to Who.
Reporter: Naturally.
SCO: That's different.
Reporter: That's what I said.
SCO: You're not saying it...
Reporter: I talk to Naturally.
SCO: You talk to Who.
Reporter: Naturally.
SCO: That's it.
Reporter: That's what I said!
SCO: You ask me.
Reporter: I talk to who?
SCO: Naturally.
Reporter: Now you ask me.
SCO: You talk to Who?
Reporter: Naturally.
SCO: That's it.
Reporter: Same as you! Same as YOU! I pick up the phone and talk to who. Whoever it is forwards me to the second company. Who picks up the phone and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don’t Know. I Don’t Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple threat. Another company comes along and hits your lawsuit right out of court. Why? I don’t know! He’s on third and I don’t give a darn!
SCO: What?
Reporter: I said I don't give a darn!
SCO: Oh, that's our eighth.
__________________
With thanks to Abbott and Costello.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST |
Thanks! I was about to forward links to the actual comment to friends; this
makes it easier.
Re: SCO's complaint. SCO now says IBM doesn't know much about the x86.
The processor used in "IBM PC-compatible" systems? Wow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST |
So we have to find something called "who"
World Health Organisation?
Thats it the are going to sue the UN. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:09 PM EST |
I used to think this was all about a buyout attempt, and some small part of me
still does.
SCOG wants to rewrite copyright law, and establish new precedents.
SCOG wants to piggyback their extremely tenuous claims to IBM IP on the
abhorrent Eldred V Ashcroft decision, extending copyright law into new domains
that no one else thinks are valid.
The letter to congress, Kev-boy's letter, Darl's speech at Harvard and the IBM
suit all point to this.
The threats against Linux users are just to keep the stock price up, making the
company more legitimate in some eyes. That is necessary to get more funding to
pursue the main aim, getting new precedents on the books.
The constant threats to "monetize Linux" may be, in Darl's mind,
completely valid.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kjb on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST |
rofl
Thanks, Nick!! Classic.
---
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveB on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST |
| LOL! Classic! Great job Nick! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST |
| How long does it take four federal judges to change a polish lightbulb? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT but in the spirit - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST
- near Krakow - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:24 PM EST |
check out:
<http://groups.google.com/
groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=X7%25_b.10483%24253.872933%40news20.b
ellglobal.com&rnum=5>
Yes, it's mainly about patents, but here's a quote about intellectual property:
"...Intelectual property: you can't use it up, and you can't dispose of it,
so it's more like just a dictatorial, monopolistic, and fraudulent exploit on
the naturally evolved concept of property..."
Ok, so it's not just a parody.
Idontdowindows[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST |
Did this come off pacer? Its got some of the logic we find in SCO legal
briefs.
.. no I'm serious..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST |
| The subject says it all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:51 PM EST |
..Bob Mims story
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/business/136590.asp
quoted IBM counsel David Marriott as saying: "...We want
to know the location of the 17 lines of code [SCO(*) has
thus far provided to IBM]. We want to know, exactly, what
it is in Linux they believe they have rights to."
..this is pretty much us linux folks accepting to return
"the original 17 stolen nails" used to build "the Church
of Linux", rather than a full box of brand new replacement
nails.
..we don't wanna leave the stolen nails in there, so on
Dec 5'th Judge Wells ordered the SCO Group to tell IBM
"which darn 17 nails" or "what kinda nails to look for".
..and on Dec 8'th, we all learned the SCO Group,
_couldn't_. Because no such theft has been done on
anything they own.
..now, look at your own home. If I tell you my kiddie 3
wheeler bike was stolen 35 years ago, and steel from it
made it into a box of nails, and 17 of those nails was
used to build any wee part of your home, do you agree with
the SCO Group's logic that _I_ own your home? ;-)
..or will you rip out those 17 nails, one by one, and
replace them? ;-) Pulling any nail in your home, and
promptly replacing it, is not gonna harm your home in any
way, unless it is _really_ badly built. ;-)
..like the SCO Group's legal defense:
To sum up this case, it looks like _they_ stole my
3-wheeler-kiddie-bike. ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:11 PM EST |
PJ!
Thank you very much for the link to Abbot and Costello. I first heard (and saw)
this routine back in the '50's (that's *1950's*, not 1650's as my kids would try
to tell me), but I never got all the words.
Craig
(Tyche)
---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Stephen Hawking[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:14 PM EST |
on floor...weeping...
oh my...may pass out...
thanks.
Ouch ouch
---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST |
http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5168637.html
The Lindon,
Utah-based company plans to announce its legal target Wednesday morning, shortly
before its conference call regarding its financial results for the first quarter
of fiscal 2004, spokesman Blake Stowell said.
"We'll have at least
one suit that's filed today before the end of the day," Stowell said
Tuesday, with two suits more likely. "There is a high possibility we will be
announcing two."
SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride said Monday that
the company planned to talk about the suits Tuesday, but Stowell said the
company needed more time to prepare the announcement.
Er,
right, we're supposed to believe that SCO is going to sue somebody tomorrow, and
they don't know if it's one somebody or two somebodys.
And we're
supposed to believe what's holding this up is "preparing the announcement"
rather than little things like legal pleadings or evidence.
And (from
previous reports), we're supposed to believe as of Monday that hadn't even
decided who to sue among a bunch of companies, despite planning to file a law
suit the next day.
I'm inclined to believe, that Darl made an
off-the-cuff remark on Monday, and now they're struggling to know what to do
next, all because of the little hoax that could.
If a suit
happens tomorrow, I'll bet it was typed up by Kevin and Brent
today.
Look for little tell tale signs, like even more incoherence than
usual.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RicksPlace on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:54 PM EST |
This could be fun. Look what happens when you use Darl, Groklaw and SCO, in a
old News article.
SCO Information Minister Darl Mcbride
aka. Baghdad Bob
"The information I received from the governorates was more precise and
comprehensive than the information I got from Groklaw. I was sincere in
everything I said, even just before the fall of SCO." "The information
was correct, but the interpretations were not," he said. "I did my
duty up to the last minute." [the war was a] "very difficult time. Not
just on one man, but on all." [my quotes] "are all from the Unix
history and all will be clear on time." [I received my information]
"From authentic sources. Many authentic sources."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: charlie Turner on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:28 PM EST |
Going back to the Cheese Shop:
SCOG to Judge: I'm afraid our case is a bit runny.
Judge to SCOG: Is it!
Judge to SCOG: I don't care how e2fsck?*&% runny it is; bring forth your
case!!!
moving forward a bit to the pet shop:
Our case is not dead! It's just pining!
Pining!!! it's an ex case!
It's deceased!!
it's e2fsck?*&% snuffed it!!
Moving along:
Bailiff to all present:
Bring out your dead!
SCOG: I'm not dead yet!
IBM, Novell, Red Hat, et al:
You will be soon!
SCOG to all as they leave the courtroom:
It's only a flesh wound! Come back here and fight like a man! I'll bite your
kneecaps off!
Bailiff to SCOG:
A Eropean Swallow, or an African Swallow?
SCOG: I don't know.....
BOING!!!!!!!!!!
None shall pass![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Darl McPython - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: photocrimes on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:20 AM EST |
Not sure if this means anything or not. Someone had said something about
Linuxinsider being very pro-SCO and anti-Linux.
I just did some quick searching and may have found a tie to someone we all know
and love.
Ok, whois info:
Registrant:
ECT News Network
15821 Ventura Blvd.
Suite 635
Encino, CA 91436
US
Administrative Contact:
Bohling, Daniel sysadmin-opensrs@ectnews.com
15821 Ventura Blvd.
Suite 635
Encino, CA 91436
US
Well who is the ECT Network?
It came up with the same info as LI did, so I did a search on the phone numbers
and turned up a older whois listing, seems other Linux users had questioned
their motives.
Domain Name: ECTNEWS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
ECT News Network, Inc. (ZDQUZUBOEO) rbkern@aol.com
P.O. Box 260069
Encino, CA 91426
US
Now that email address belongs to one "Richard Kern" who is the
founder and CEO of E-Commerce Times(ECT) who just happens to own TechNewsWorld.
And who would TechNewsWorld employ as their weekly tech editor????
Why none other than the well known and respected Rob Enderle.
Now I know that's a stretch, but man does it get interesting when you start
dig'n around.
;-)
---
//A picture is worth a thousand words//[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:31 AM EST |
I generally dont spend a lot of time reading parodies, but this one was good. I
would highly recommend it *after* watching the Darl interview video, posted on
news.com front page today. Look for it on the right side of the page.
If the Windows Media option doesn't work, try the realvideo option. Windows
Media Server is under some amount of stress right now I think.
Higly entertaining content.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:17 AM EST |
I can't see the monitor right now fpor the tears, but THANK YOU NICK!!!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coolmos on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST |
Since i'm Dutch, the Abbott and Costello sketches are not often seen here on
television. I have seen it only once. Must have been more then 10 years ago, but
i remember it very well.
I'm starting to think that Groklaw is not about SCO or legal affairs.
It's a new artform. Of course it needs somthing to work on, and SCO is at hand
now.
I surely hope that PJ will devote a special chapter in her book to these
things.
We've been talking here at work about sketches, movies, satire and that sort of
stuff for more then an hour. Thanks for bringing some fun in our days !
---
A 699 license ? Is that the US variant of the Nigerian 419 scam ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Art - Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:12 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: mpah on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST |
Coca-Cola has started selling bottled water that comes out of the taps in Sidcup
(a suburb of London), under the brand name Dasani. It's always been said that
they know water from the Thames is fit to drink in London because it has been
passed by the inhabitants of Slough, Reading and other towns upstream. But
having overcome these little obstacles to their marketing campaign, Coca-Cola
executives were astonished today to find themselves the target of a claim
against their intellectual property rights, trade secrets and trademarks.
At a press conference in the Lindon headquarters of the SCO group, Darl McBrew,
CEO of the company that is now famous for aggressive defence of its intellectual
property rights in the Lunix operating system, revealed that the target of the
long awaited law-suit is none other than the Coca-Cola Corporation itself.
"This claim is brought to you by the letter 'S'" the fiercely
muppet-faced PR executive Blake Towell announced" - "They 'tole our
intellectual property in that vital letter" said Mr McBrew as he explained
that his company had some time ago become successors in interest to the letter
'S' in the name 'Coca-Cola' and to the letters 'S' and 'C' in the chemical
formula for water - "for years the world has falsely believed that this
formula is just H2O, but now we'll reclaim the rights that have been 'tolen from
us by the international terrorists of the Open Source movement, a movement that
believes that the sources of water should be open to all despite the danger this
poses to our national purity of essence".
"And in the nineteenth place" explained Mr Towell, "everyone
knows that the true source is the famous SCOSource of Sidcup near Lindon, Utah,
and that the attempt to pass off tap water from no 23 Linus Avenue, Sidcup,
London as if it were H2SCO is a plot by the atheists of old Europe and the
communists of Al Qaeda against the Constitution of the United States of
America.
"But" an astonished reporter finally managed to ask "surely there
is no letter 'S' in the name 'Coca-Cola'." "Exactly", replied Mr
Towell, "they 'tole it, it's the secret of all their success, and now you
know it belongs to us, it all belongs to us ..."
The assembled correspondents collected their wits and remembered that yesterday
SCO had confirmed that they would announce not just one but two law-suits.
"Who's the second?", they asked. But as Mr Towell bagan to explain
that while they had already been concerned about NASA's analysis of the moon's
crust (which as is well known is made of a kind of green cheese that is found
only in Lindon, Utah), they now understood that this well known terrorist
organisation was claiming to have found on Mars the same material that had been
wrongly bottled by Coca-Cola in London. "This one is very new, so we'll
announce next week .." he was beginning to explain, when he was interrupted
by Mr McBrew, who stated that NASA had broken the Darl McBrew Copyright
Agreement - the DMCA - and this was a criminal matter. It had even been
suggested that SCO2 was a cause of global warming, which was a further slur on
our national purity of essence.
But at this point the press conference broke up in confusion. Ashen-faced Mr
McBrew broke into a heated discussion of the legal basis for these claims and of
their likely effect on the SCOSource revenue stream by tilting his head forward
and removing the top of his skull, so that everyone could see quite plainly that
there was nothing inside - "those cwazy tewwowists have even 'tolen my
intellectual pwoperty fwom between my ears!" he said.
As it happened, the immense Minegrewdollars Corporation was also holding a press
conference to announce that they were applying for a patent on the spherical
shape of the bubbles in carbonated H2SCO. But when asked about the latest events
in Lindon Utah, their scopesman said that although Minegrewdollars had invested
about $10 million in an H2SCO invisible property license, they couldn't possibly
comment on these latest developments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:15 AM EST |
my wife does not understand why i quit reading Dilbert.
i've explained several times that it is TOO close to the truth. it's not funny
anymore.
your's is very close to that point. but stopped just in time.
ya done good!
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:49 AM EST |
it's AutoZone.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK6.story&STORY=/www
/story/03-03-2004/0002121120&EDATE=WED+Mar+03+2004,+07:05+AM
i should go buy somthing from them just on principle.
also
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2004/03/03/rtr1284238.html
Seems TSG should have learned the words to Koom bi ya.
btw, am i spelling it right?
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Kum ba yah - Authored by: tgf on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:03 AM EST |
According to the article:
AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux
operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from
SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights.
IANAL and everything, but AFAIK from my extended Groklaw-readings, this
accusation should not last longer than a nanosecond, because the right they use
is *Copyright* and they sue them for "running" the system, not copying
and/or distributing it. So even *if* there would be SCO's copyrighted works in
the Linux-Sources, they have no base in Copyright-Law to sue a user.
Or did I miss something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
