|
|
| Bloor on SCO: "Morally, It Has No Case At All" & Linus on Groklaw |
 |
|
Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:14 AM EST
|
This has to be a pivotal moment in this story. IT-Director has a piece by Robin Bloor, "The GPL And The Legal Challenge To It",
who defends the GPL as innovative and clearly Constitutional and then says the open source community "is an honest breath of fresh air" in contrast with the proprietary IT industry. He points out that there is no evidence anyone in the FOSS community wants to violate anyone's code and that it is SCO that is refusing to allow anyone to fix the problem, if there even is one. Why? He expresses the opinion that there's no money in it for SCO that way. If you go to the Bloor Research website, Mr. Bloor's page describes him like this: "Robin Bloor is the President, founder and driving force behind Bloor Research and is generally acknowledged as a leading authority and influencer in the industry, developing the Bloor Research's trademark pragmatic and practical approach to providing IT advice and research. Robin's career in IT spans over 25 years, as a software developer, senior consultant and then as managing director of a software house specialising in financial systems." He finishes his article by saying that while it isn't up to him to say if SCO has a legal case, "morally, it has no case at all."
Here's a bit of what he has to say: "SCO claims that its IP was abused. However it has chosen not to do anything to allow the Open Source movement to rectify that. SCO's motivation seems obvious to me. If its IP has truly been violated (for which so far there is no public evidence) SCO will make no commercial gain from having the situation rectified, if it deals direct with the Open Source community. It chooses therefore to allow any IP violation that might have occurred to persist in the hope of a later and greater legal-commercial windfall. "This seems dishonest to me. SCO could easily rectify any IP violation at once and this would not prejudice any legal position it has in respect of past violations against any legal entity. In the IT industry, source code and IP is quite frequently abused, but its abuse is protected by companies keeping their source code private (if a good deal of anecdotal information I have been given over the years is true). In contrast, the Open Source community is an honest breath of fresh air." He doesn't quite get that you can charge for GPL code, and that people do every day, but hey, let's not quibble. In time, that message will get through, too. Linus on SCO and Groklaw - Guess Which One He Likes? Linus is interviewed on Information Week, and he speaks about trust: "And that is one really important part of open source: no technical barriers to market entry, and the fact that you can trust the process, even if you might not implicitly trust the developer. . . .Because if we are shown to not be trustworthy, somebody else can always replace us--so you don't have to be able to trust us. "(I harp on trust, because I think that's pretty much the most important ingredient in any relationship, whether it is commercial or social. The trust that you won't be back-stabbed is something we're all looking for, isn't it?)" He has some interesting things to say about SCO ("The open development model already makes it pretty well traceable. We've been very successful indeed in tracking down the sources of various pieces of the kernel as SCO has been doing their PR thing, and I'm happy with just how quickly we've been able to totally debunk every single silly claim SCO has had.") and about open source and commercial interests working together. No, not with SCO. He says something nice about us at Groklaw too. You'll just have to hop on over and read it for yourself. Nah. Here's what he says: "Also, groklaw.net has obviously shown how the open-source ideals end up working in the legal arena, too, and I think that has been very useful and made a few people sit up and notice." There is also an article at SearchEnterpriseLinux.com that says that Linux continues to grow in stature in the enterprise. It's just too good not to use: "'We cannot have second thoughts about using Linux, as I had the great pleasure of converting our last Windows server to Linux a couple years ago,' said Dan Smith, an administrator with the Intelligent Systems Lab at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. 'And in a year or two, [we] will be able to retire the last of our Sun [servers]. We could not provide one-third of the services and abilities we currently do if we did not use Linux as our primary operating system.' . . . "Linux is holding up as a replacement for Unix and Windows. Expensive Solaris and HP-UX packages are being put to sleep as contracts come up for renewal. Windows, meanwhile, is falling victim to security concerns and expensive licenses. With Microsoft set to end support for NT at the end of this year, Redmond has a challenge on its hands, as it tries to migrate users to Windows Server 2003 and away from Linux.
"'There is just not enough budget to use Windows,' said the Johnson Space Center's Smith. 'It cost an arm and a leg to equip a Windows machine with what is standard load on most major Linux distros.'"
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:54 AM EST |
Its funny really; SCO always seems to end up arguing both sides of the arguments
it gets into...
* IBM owns AIX, but SCO claims control of how it is released
* SCO has control over the Unix sourcecode but claims it really owns it
* SCO claims the GPL is invalid
* SCO distributes Samba, and indeed linux, via the GPL licensing rights...
I have trouble remembering the other contridictions that have come to me over
the last 6 months, but I know there are more....
just my 0.02 euros....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BC on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:03 AM EST |
With an increasing number of articles like this, not only will SCO be swept a
way in court of public opinion, but Microsoft may regret the greatly increased
public awareness of FOSS. It was coming anyway, but the lawsuit has generated
even more discussion and understanding of FOSS and the GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST |
Robin Bloor is the President, founder and driving force behind Bloor
Research and is generally acknowledged as a leading authority and influencer in
the industry
Acknowleged by whom, exactly? I've never heard of him
- and while I won't say that this makes him unknown, if he's as influential as
his site suggests, I'd like to know more about what he's done for this
industry.
Does anyone have a quick summary of his role in the
development of the computing industry? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:25 AM EST
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST
- Suits - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST
- Suits - Authored by: John on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 03:30 PM EST
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:36 AM EST
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:29 AM EST
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 01:11 PM EST
- Who is this guy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST
- Parent is Anonymous Troll - Authored by: JeR on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST
- Parent is DEFINITELY a Troll - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 07:06 PM EST
- Who this guy is - maybe - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 12:19 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: edumarest on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST |
I love this term: legal-commercial. It's a succinct term to describe what
appears to be SCO's business model.
I am waiting for PJ's volunteer bridade of sleuths to find case law where this
has been done before and found to be illegal.
Business owner: Your Honor, I found that my employee was stealing widgets from
me; each widget is worth $5.
Your Honor: When did you notify the police?
Business owner: After the employee stole 1,000 over a period of a year.
Your Honor: The first theft then would be a misdemeanor?
Business owner: Yes.
Your Honor: So you waited until it was a felony? Why?
Business owner: (silence)
---
...if you cannot measure it then you cannot troubleshoot it, you can only
guess...
SuSE 9.0 on hp pavilion ze 4560us[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST |
That this case is about money rather than morality has been clear from the very
beginning. SCO is attempting to monetize other people's work (authors of FOSS)
by claiming that key pieces of Linux are theirs and therefore need to be paid
for. Of course, they'll gladly sell you a license for this (quite disputed)
work of theirs, along with the rest of the kernel (other people's work) for a
tidy little sum of $699 a processor.
Thankfully, they do not seem at this time to have the truth behind them.
Despite all of their machinations, they have not demonstrated anything
substantial, and even if they did, it would be re-coded as soon as it was
announced what the "wrong" (SCO's) code was -- and thus again leaving
SCO out of the loop.
That leaves one wondering what their real strategy is -- since they don't that
they will prevail in court, since they are suing their customer base, and
therefore alienating it, what's the REAL reason behind all of this?
It appears that has been uncovered -- Microsoft has invested in SCO, and the
reason that the have done so is to fund SCO's nefarious with hunt. Microsoft
undoubtedly knows that SCO will not prevail, except in one realm -- slowing down
the adoption of Linux over MS technologies while this case winds it's way
through the legal system. In the gap that creates, Microsoft apparently hopes
that they will be able to entrench their propietary technologies, and armed with
their own suite of patents, lock out any FOSS projects. So, at the end of the
day, Microsoft paid $100 million for FUD and for time. Given the profits they
may see, it was a bargain.
Think of it as reverse viral marketing -- making the other guy look like a legal
risk and themselves as the "safe" alternative gets them business.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Baldy on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST |
Good,
Another commercial analyst has worked out what all this is
about.
Shame about some of the others, I won't name them as they
don't deserve publicity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:36 AM EST |
Please, I just don’t understand:
1) SCO has been selling Linux.
2) SCO claims that some (but not all) of the Linux code is SCO copyright.
3) SCO claims that it only released the code under the GNU GPL because it was
unaware that somebody had slipped in the odd million lines of non-GPL code
(namely, that copyright SCO).
Now if this was true, SCO did not receive the code under a valid GNU GPL, and
therefore, it had no right to distribute it under the GPL (nor in any other
way). SCO has two ways of resolving this:
1) Release its own code under the GNU GPL - end of problem all round.
2) Claim that its parts can stand alone in their own right. Then SCO is free to
distribute its own works under whatever licence it chooses and the remainder
under the GPL - this is unlikely to be a practicable option.
SCO has not chosen to do either; thus it has taken the obvious choice of ceasing
to distribute Linux. There are two problems with this option:
1) SCO continues to support existing customers by supplying GNU code.
2) SCO has already sold goods and services to its customers which, from the
above arguments, it believes it had no right to do.
Now, the correct thing for SCO to do is to tell its customers that their GNU GPL
licences are invalid and ask them to destroy all copies of the software and
refund the monies paid. (No doubt the customers would have a thing or two to say
about this - mainly in court.)
But, what does SCO do, offers its customers ‘licences’ to use unspecified code
that SCO claim to own and which is part of a ‘derivative work’ that SCO never
(if its claims are true) had a licence to distribute.
Why are SCO's customers not suing SCO? After all, they have paid good money for
a product which SCO now claims is in two parts:
1) Part which SCO owns the copyright and which it has sold under the GNU GPL and
is now trying to ask the customer to pay for again.
2) Part which SCO does not own the copyright for and which SCO had no licence to
distribute as it received it under a GNU GPL which SCO itself claims is
invalid.
Thus the customer has been sold a totally worthless product.
Alan (UK)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Please, I just don’t understand. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST
- SCalderO is to blame either way - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST
- Please, I just don’t understand. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:22 AM EST
- I disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST
- Please, I just don’t understand. - Authored by: jamesw on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST
- It is even better - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST
- Please, I just don’t understand. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST |
...is going strong again...
Strange...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOX... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:34 AM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST
- Opinion(s) on the stock - Authored by: jcr6 on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:49 AM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:45 AM EST
- Dead cat bounce - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST
- SCOX... - Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 03:15 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:33 AM EST |
| The Kattoon
Cartoon
RDE [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:34 AM EST |
> This is the heart of the legal battle between IBM and SCO.
> SCO claims that its IP was abused.
I've don't think that this is really the core of SCO's claim. The core of their
claim remains a contract dispute with IBM, that IBM has not complied with a
restrictive clause of their contract with SCO (by making JFS, NUMA, etc publicly
available).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bigwzl on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
PJ,
You forgot to mention one little thing from the Information Week
interview with Linus. He mentions Groklaw specifically, saying "Also,
groklaw.net has obviously shown how the open-source ideals end up working in the
legal arena, too, and I think that has been very useful and made a few people
sit up and notice."
I know a lot of this is F/OSS "preaching to
the choir", but I do not think you can underestimate the power of what you have
started and the power of an involved, informed community.
Keep on
keeping on with the good fight. We shall follow. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:40 AM EST |
While it's good to see some SCO bashing, the article
is not very good. It suggests that ATT intended to
release UNIX for "sharing" with the IT community and
uses the notorious newsletter to support this. Such
a claim is ridiculous.
Also, Bloor seems to think that if you use GPL code
then you must release it (under GPL). Again, this is
a very egregious (and unfortunately common) error.
I fear such misinformed anti-SCO articles will not
really help the free software cause. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobn on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST |
| The article linked to is good, but what about thse, aslo form
IT-director?:
http://www.it-dire
ctor.com/article.php?articleid=11788
http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11798
These articles,
bylined "Bob McDowall Bloor Research", share these facets:
- Errors
about the GPL, stating dor example that aggregation of programs forces the samew
license on all of them, (which is explicitly not the case as shown in the GPL
FAQ at FSF.org), or that free-software advocates think that the GPL overrules
the Intellectual Propert" rights of the owners of any proprietary code which
find its way into GPL'd code.
- An inability to write sentences that parse,
leavel alone make sense and are true.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Unfortunately there is no room for moral or justice in the US legal system.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST |
The phrase that the GPL code can be charged for is incorrect..
In a dual licensing situation the firm or entity is not charging for GPL code
but for code under a different license..very different menaing form your choice
of words and phrasing..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:19 AM EST |
i found this old copy of PC Pro magazine while i was cleaning the room and i
found this interesting piece in one of its article written by a writer called
David Evnull it contains some interesting and foreshadowing remarks about SCO. i
just typed this under 5 minutes so excuse any typos u find
:
-------------------------------------------------
Don't believe the
gripe....
When someonen as well placed as Ray Anderson from SCO and IXI
describes the Common Desktop Environment (CDE) as 'the Common Death Embrace', it
might make you suspect there are some horrendous technical problems with CDE.
but in the computer business you have to learn to look at the interests of the
company making such comments.
IXI is for some reason pushing the Windows look
and feel as 'what the customers want', and because CDE isn't Windows it's
therefore all a waste of time. i'd love to know when the meeting that decided
'Well, Microsoft flogged a lot of Windows, so let's all throw in the towel shall
we chaps?' occured. Apart from the fact Windows doesn't actually have a
consistent look and feel beteen any of the major revisions, it's not a standard
people are free to copy. You have to be a friend of Microsoft (and it helps to
be partly owned by it).
You might have noticed on some Unix systems the words
(c) Microsoft Whizzing past when the copyright messages come up. That's beacuse
Microsoft once owned Xenix and then sold it to SCO. Unix SVR4 supported Xenix
and so that copyright message crept in. Later on, Microsoft bought 15 per cent
of SCO and has held on to it ever since.
SCO has always been very negative
about updating its technology; when SVR4 arrived, SCO said there was no demand
for its features from its customers. So little demand that the company has been
retrofitting SVR4 features onto SCO Unix ever since, and now SCO has the feature
list of SVR4, but isn't an SVR4 based Unix.
Meanwhile, the undemanding
customers have had lots of incremental feature updates. Now that SCO is saying
the same thing about CDE. It does make you wonder why a company would be so
netural about common standards in Unix business?
Written by David Evnull - PC
Pro (Issue 9 July 1995)
-------------------------------------------------------[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
I found a very informative artice, Licence fees and GDP per capita, that
relates the licensing cost of one Windows XP/Office system to the average
income in various countries.
This relationship is neatly demonstrated
by comparing licence fees with a country’s GDP per capita (i.e. the average
individual income). As is quickly apparent, in developing countries, even after
software price discounts, the price tag for proprietary software is enormous in
purchasing power terms. The price of a typical, basic proprietary toolset
required for any ICT infrastructure, Windows XP together with Office XP, is
US$560 in the U.S. [2]. This is over 2.5 months of GDP/capita in South
Africa and over 16 months of GDP/capita in Vietnam. This is the equivalent of
charging a single-user licence fee in the U.S. of US$7,541 and US$48,011
respectively, which is clearly unaffordable. Moreover, no likely discount would
significantly reduce this cost, and in any case the simple fact that a single
vendor controls any single proprietary software application means that there can
never be a guarantee that any discount offered is intended to be sustained for
the long term, rather than as a temporary measure used to tempt consumers into a
lock-in situation at which point in time the discount can be
reduced.
They then provide a table covering 176 different countries
around the world. This gives a new light on the TCO arguments we hear from MS
and related interests. The simple fact is that proprietary pricing sctructures
are simply not an option in undeveloped countries. The really intersting one is
China, with average income of $911, making the $560 licensing of
XP/Office equivalant to $21,678. The overwhealming number of new computer
users in the future will, by definition, come from these low income nations.
Adequate computers can be produced and sold for $200 now. Linux/OpenOffice
totally replaces the XP/Office package. And not only is it free of licensing
restrictions, its often free of cost, if you know someone that already has it.
And it's not called piracy to use it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:04 PM EST |
"'There is just not enough budget to use Windows,' said the Johnson Space
Center's Smith. 'It cost an arm and a leg to equip a Windows machine with what
is standard load on most major Linux distros.'"
But Ms DiDio does not agree, and insists windoze is cheaper than Linux:
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;383869897;fp;2;fpid;1
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST |
Migrating from Windows to Linux, Part 1: Preparation
http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20040329/index.html
Crashes, viruses and headaches. You have had it with Windows and you want
to switch to Linux. Where to begin? How do you save your documents? Will
my hardware work?
...
In part II of our Migration from Windows to Linux article, we will cover
installation of Linux, Open Office and the various music/video players in
Linux. Until then, say goodbye to your Windows OS, because its doom is
approaching.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM EST |
Just to let you know, the TIF file for the motion and SCO's memorandum in
support is now available on PACER.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ujay on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:51 PM EST |
There's an article on
eWeek describing
a new proposal from the judge in the MS/Lindows case:
"The
battle between Lindows.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. over the Lindows trademark
took an interesting turn today when U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in
Seattle proposed a deal in which Microsoft can proceed with an appeal of his
earlier ruling that a jury must decide whether 'windows' had been a generic term
before it was trademarked and Microsoft would cease its efforts to get foreign
courts to stop the sales of Lindows until the U.S. case is
decided.
---
Programmer: A biological system designed
to convert coffee and cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 01:15 PM EST |
Mr. Bloor wrote, "As I understand it, SCO's legal case is based on the
claim that it owns all the code that IBM developed in AIX."
SCO has spewed hype everywhere but didn't they say that IBM owns AIX as a
derived work?
I appreciate Mr. Bloor's sentiments but does he really understand the case
enough to comment on it with credibility? It's almost like he's saying,
"...and your mother wares combat boots, too."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Now what does the Canopy group have in mind to do with Altiris. Altiris as some
of you may not know Altiris recently aquired Wise Solutions for $43 million cash
and stock. Now Wise Solutions is being sued by Installation Software
Technologies Inc., they allege copyright violations and misappropriation of
trade secrets. Apparently they say that Wise Solutions raided their FTP servers
got trade secrets, patents and customer lists. Now get this! The law firm, Baker
& McKenzie, representing Installation Software Technologies Inc. is also
Altiris's law firm, therefore, is also representing Wise solutions.
links:
http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid1_gci939492,00.h
tml
http://litigationcenter.bna.com/pic2/lit.nsf/id/BNAP-5X7Q2M?OpenDocument
http://www.installshield.com/news/press.asp?id=692
Altiris major stockholders are:
YARRO, RALPH J. III, 6,682,220 shares, 29-May-02
CANOPY GRP INC-R.J.YARRO III, 5,449,092 shares, 30-Apr-03
Also note that:
RBC Capital Markets, upgraded stock to Outperform as of 2/4/2004.
I smell another Canopy company sealed settlement coming!
_[=================]_
---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---
from under the bridge
I realize I'm only the hired help here but I don't do Windows.
vegas t[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: theguyfromsaturn on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST |
This article made me remember something we saw in the course of engineering
law... the "obligation to mitigate damages"
I'm certainly not an expert in law, but from that little course we had, the fact
that SCO failed to keep track of the Linux code which is available for all to
see, and later refused to specify what code it claims should not be there so
that it could be promptly removed from all distributions should not allow them
to get much compensation for the harm they claim, even if they were proven to be
correct about the code, which is far from obvious. Having been involved with
Linux they certainly cannot claim to not knowing that they could have a look at
the code.
Anyway I was just wondering if any of you could clarify some of that to me. I
just felt that from what I think I remember from that long forgotten course,
that common sense and law should be able to meet on this point: You cannot allow
damages to accumulate just so you can claim larger benefits.
You have a duty to take measures that will prevent further damages... and
refusing to tell Linus and the other coders exactly what they thought should be
removed, as soon as it showed up in the code (which they should have know if
they had shown due diligence and thought they had something to protect that IBM
might have put in there) probably would not have contributed much to minimizing
their perceived damages.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 03:41 PM EST |
Geolux Communications, Inc. v. Clear Course, Inc. (4th Judicial Dist. Utah
2002-present): Representing plaintiff Geolux in misappropriation of trade
secrets and conversion action pertaining to interactive training software.
link:
http://www.parsonsbehlelaw.com/practice_areas.php?view=20
Anybody know anything about this Geolux Communications' (Canopy company)
litigation? Maybe, you Utahans ;)
_[=================]_
---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---
from under the bridge
I realize I'm only the hired help here but I don't do Windows.
vegas t[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 03:43 PM EST |
| Over at Tux Rocks web site they have a
PDF copy of the Order Granting IBM Leave to Amend its
Counterclaims.
Charles
---
Some Lawyers are just like bananas, they
are all crooked, yellow and slimy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 03:50 PM EST |
| Amusing little article over at The Inquirer about one
company's frustration with Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: McMartin on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST |
| He doesn't quite get that you can charge for GPL code
Well, to pick
nits, he said that SCO will make no commercial gain from having the situation
rectified...
And given the general prospects for their Linux products at
this point, even though they are permitted to charge for GPL code, they
still won't be making any commercial gain. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 04:05 PM EST |
What I can't understand is that nobody is prosecuting SCO for extortion and
restraint of trade. Their threats of lawsuits for using a competitor's product
without paying a "license fee" (read: protection money) is nothing
less than extortion. Especially when you consider that they have not, as yet,
shown any proof that they have any rights to what they are claiming, and are in
the middle of court proceedings to determine if, indeed, they have any legal
claim to those products. It is clear that they are trying to prevent further
sales of competitors' products by making these threats. So why have no charges
been filed against SCO?
Furthermore, why is it that IBM has been forced to reveal their AIX code to SCO,
when SCO has not been forthcoming with their own code? They made the accusation
that infringing code existed in Linux, so why have they not produced any
examples of said infringed code? Doesn't the burden of proof lie with them? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 04:11 PM EST |
I heard a while ago that Law was one of, or is, the fastest growing
profession in the US. In any other field, one might expect this to lead to an
oversaturated job market, but man o man, are they smart about job
security.
Personally, this
smells like the patent suit over hyperlinks. Maybe I should apply for a patent:
"Method for converging and diverging visible, sub-visible, and ultra-visible
electromagnetic radiation via refractive materials in convex and concave
macromolecular formation." and then create the corresponding company; LENS Inc.
That would be soon followed by the "Method for manually recording freehand
vector diagrams using wooden encased carbon stylii." Pentel, Sanford,
FaberCastell, and Staedtler, your game is up!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 04:49 PM EST |
According to a very well crafted propoganda peice by the pro-corporation,
anti-consumer "Institute for Policy Innovation", open source has <a
href="http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullTex
t/F4992D9C7780355786256E49001E7595">reached its limits</a> and is
now on the way out, just like "4GL languages" and "Y2K".
According to this brainiac, open source software leads to <b>more lock
in</b> for people who use it, not less, and has limited applicability
outside of academic and other fringe areas.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fixed your link for you - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST
- OT: one step forward, and now one step back - Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Article a troll in disguise? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST
- OT: one step forward, and now one step back - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 07:23 PM EST
- OT: one step forward, and now one step back - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:11 PM EST
- What century does he think we're in? (Was: OT: one step forward, and now one step back) - Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:04 PM EST
- You are a troll - Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 07:09 AM EST
- You are a troll - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST
- OT: one step forward, and now one step back - Authored by: deList on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 04:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST |
Maybe I've been being dense but I've just realised why SCOG had to file slander
of title and not breach of contract - they aren't a party to the APA.
If their contract with Tarrantella were to include "All the Unix related
copyrights that seller owns at the time of closing" or some such phrase
then if Tarantella didn't get the SVRX copyrights from Novell then SCOG doesn't
get them even if Tarantella could demand them from Novell.
Further from a publicity point of view SCOG needed their suit to be against
Novell, a suit against Tarantella that then required Tarantella to sue Novell
would make it just too obvious what a problem SCOG has got.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:55 PM EST |
I see that SCO:s memorandum is now available as TIFF:s from Pacer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: technoCon on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:23 PM EST |
<tinfoil hat>
1. SCO sells GPL-licensed software.
2. SCO claims Linux is a derivative of SysV Linux and muddies waters about
Linux' copyrights.
3. SCO violates terms of GPL.
Then either:
a) Someone sues SCO for copyright violation and suits are FUDded to confuse the
Unix copyright suit by SCO and the Linux copyright suit against SCO. Suits
conclude that GPLed software is a legal risk and they buy Microsoft.
or
b) No one sues SCO. Microsoft steals the same GPLed software and when caught it
tells the judge, "Those commies didn't bother protecting their copyrights
against SCO. It isn't fair to pick on me." Judge finds for Microsoft.
</tinfoil hat>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:22 AM EST |
If Linus reads Groklaw I'd expect he'd feel compelled to comment now and again.
So that's just another reason to not hide anonymous comments. (If I was Linus
I'd post anonymously).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: danelray on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:56 AM EST |
The AT&T renunciation of all claim to derivative works was unique in the
history of software.
At that moment in time, IBM and all academia were on
the verge of renouncing UNIX. AT&T had encouraged the use of UNIX code in
the teaching of operating system theory.
Suddenly, the PhDs realized that
all new academic work might be claimed as property of AT&T. So many were
working on redefining operating system theory in terms foreign to UNIX.
AT&T first put word out on the Internet that no one would be subject to
derivative work claims. No contract required. Just a permanent irretractable
denial of any future claims on derivative work. They even confirmed that at most
only their original code would be subject to any claim. They then published it
in their magazine. They confirmed it to IBM and all of academia. AT&T gave
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the FUTURE would NEVER be CLOUDED with SUCH
CLAIMS.
EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS. AT&T made an IRRETRACTABLE PUBLIC
CONTRACT WITH THE WORLD! THAT CONTRACT HAS HAD SEVERE CONSEQUENCES! Academic
works were trashed due to that PUBLIC CONTRACT!
AT&T transferred the
rights to Novell with the same restrictions.
The world knows of it.
The
judges in the current cases must be called LESS THAN COMPETENT to tolerate any
claim whatsoever on derivative work of that UNIX property from ANYONE.
At
this juncture, America appears as a shoddy enterprise with weak-minded
"entrepreneurs" trying to take over the world using LESS THAN COMPETENT judges
to assign them monopolistic rights over the universe. We are dooming ourselves.
The rest of the world is getting smarter everyday while we get dumber in law and
in operating systems.
I doubt that the world outside the US will allow itself to
be coerced into economic slavery due to OVERT FRAUD on the part of the
US.---
danelray [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST |
from the article:
Good developers create their own designs; they
don't need to copy other peoples' source
code.
This
statement is so fundamentally wrong that
the author hardly qualifies to
predict anything with
respect to FOSS. All kinds of software development are
based on copying, modifying and recombining code and
ideas. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
