|
Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Germany and UK, He Claims |
|
Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 05:01 PM EDT
|
Three interesting tidbits from two interviews with Darl McBride. First, there is this article [sub req'd] currently on the cover of Fortune magazine, and there is a second interview in the Spanish-language El Pais in April.
First, from the El Pais interview, we learn that Darl went to Novell's Brainshare conference. Nobody recognized him. Apparently he slipped in after everyone settled into their seats and the program was beginning. He claims he almost asked Linus a question from the audience. He went, he says, because while you stay close to your friends, you want to stay closer to your enemies. Second, we know now what the SCO strategy was in the SCO v. Novell slander of title lawsuit, and probably why they chose that kind of state contract action, and thus why they so much want it out of federal court. Both interviews indicate that the SCO plan in the Novell lawsuit was to have some ex-Novell executives on the stand to testify that they were at Novell at the time when the negotiations were going on and the contract was written up, both when Novell bought UNIX and when it sold whatever portion of UNIX they sold (SCO claims all of it, naturally), whereas the current Novell executives were not participants. They presumed that testimony would carry the day. Darl is one of the ex-Novell executives. Of course, if Novell succeeds in turning it instead into a federal copyright question, that plan goes down the drain. There may be some issues about Mr. McBride's veracity if he does take the stand, too, I'm guessing, or his history of what BayStar called his "wild speech". Was that not the phrase they used? But it also indicates they know they can't prevail on the contract itself, and that they must rely on evidence outside of the documents as to what the intent of the parties was. You only need that if a contract isn't clear on its face. The Register suggests BayStar may be positioning itself to grab the IP for itself. Isn't that a tiresome thought? Funny thing. Nobody much wants to use SCO's UNIX anymore, but everyone and his monkey's uncle wants to litigate over it. As you know, there is a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Remand in the SCO v. Novell matter on Tuesday, before Judge Kimball, so it will be our first opportunity to see him in action. Pacer lists a Boies, Schiller attorney for the SCO Group, Scott E. Gant, from their Washington, DC office, as of May 5. He's been listed as part of the SCO team for the IBM case for a while, but he's on the Novell case too now. None of this planning and strategy will mean a thing if the Motion to Dismiss is granted or much if the Motion to Remand is denied, because then the discussion turns instead to whether the APA as amended is sufficient to meet the requirements for a copyright transfer, not what the intent of the executives was. And third, there has been activity in Spain, just as we discerned from the German interview with Gregory Blepp we reported yesterday, but it goes beyond just Spain. SCO has attorneys at work in Spain, Germany and the UK, according to Darl, and they are in discussions with businesses and governmental agencies there, as well as with governmental agencies in the US.
First, from Fortune, Darl makes the claim about knowing what happened with the sale of UNIX, because he was there:
"By far the greatest potential obstacle for SCO is the astoundingly confusing September 1995 sales contract whereby Novell transferred some but not all of its Unix rights to Santa Cruz, and thence to SCO. If Novell's reading of that contract turns out to be right -- i.e., that Novell retains control of all the crucial rights SCO is now asserting-SCO's whole post-McBride business model is annihilated. . . .
"The other huge question mark left by the same contract revolves around the Unix copyrights, which are SCO's sole basis for demanding licenses from Linux end users. Notwithstanding the claims of the press release heralding the deal, a critical appendix to the contract states that 'all copyrights' are excluded from the sale. SCO claims that this was a typo -- a whopping typo, to be sure -- that was corrected in an amendment a year later. But the amendment itself is confusing and vague.
"The one advantage SCO might have in this absolutely critical dispute with Novell is that McBride was present when the sales contract was being negotiated -- though he happened to be on the Novell side of the table back then. By contrast, none of Novell's current top management were. 'I was in the staff meetings,' McBride protests. 'We [at Novell] were selling Unix. We were exiting the business. I've gone back and talked to all of those guys. We have statements from them. We know what they're going to say as this goes through.' (The two signatories to the contract declined to comment.)"
The second piece of evidence that this is the plan is the El Pais interview. I'll provide my translation, and I'll put the Spanish there too, in purple, so that if your Spanish is better than mine, you won't be hobbled by my skill set. Our thanks to Groklaw's jmr for spotting the article. In it, McBride repeats that plan, and he also reveals that he quietly slipped into Novell's Brainshare conference the first day just after everyone settled down and almost asked Linus a question. Here is that part of the interview:
"The conversation lasted for an hour and a half and took place in Salt Lake City, just after Mr. McBride's little incursion into Linux territory. 'Stay close to your friends, but closer to your enemies,' he explains with a smile. The head of SCO speaks slowly, choosing his words carefully, and dressing them up with metaphors, drawing on paper to help explain his points.
"La conversación dura más de una hora y media, y se realiza en Salt Lake City, después de la pequeña incursión de McBride en territorio Linux. "Tienes que estar cerca de tus amigos, pero más de tus enemigos", explica, sonriendo. El presidente de SCO habla despacio, elige cuidadosamente sus palabras, las adorna con metáforas y las explica realizando dibujos en un papel.
"McBride began the conversation by reflecting on the appearance of Linus Torvalds in the Salt Palace, Linus, the creator of Linux and number one enemy of Mr. McBride. He swears he was just on the verge of asking him a question himself.
"McBride comienza la conversación reflexionando sobre la aparición, en el escenario del Salt Palace, de Linus Torvalds, creador de Linux y enemigo número uno de McBride. Asegura que estuvo a punto de preguntarle algo.
"Question? What question?
"Pregunta. ¿El qué?
"I was wanting to ask Linus to explain to all the Linux users what are the problems they face if they start using Linux. And what is his opinion of those companies who tell their customers that there are no problems and say to just go ahead and keep using Linux? There absolutely is a problem, and we need to get it resolved, instead of pretending it doesn't exist."
"Hubiera querido que Linus explicara a los usuarios cuáles son los problemas a los que se enfrentan si implantan Linux. ¿Y qué opina de esas empresas que dicen a sus clientes "no hay problema, sigan utilizando Linux"? Sí hay un problema, y deberíamos resolverlo, en lugar de enterrar la cabeza en la arena."
Is that not creepy? Sneaking in like that? Here is what he says about Novell: "What is going on is that Novell has tried to stand between us and the users. Novell says that UNIX belongs to them. But I worked at Novell when we bought UNIX. And I worked at Novell when they sold UNIX. I know what I'm talking about. I know the people who worked there at the time, the guys who signed the documents, and I know what they will say at the trial. They'll say, 'We sold UNIX.'"
"Lo que ocurre es que Novell ha tratado de interponerse entre nosotros y ellos. Novell dice que Unix es suyo. Pero yo trabajaba en Novell cuando compraron Unix. Y trabajaba en Novell cuando vendieron Unix. Sé de lo que estoy hablando. Conozco a la gente que trabajaba allí entonces, los que firmaron los documentos, y sé lo que dirán en el juicio, cuando testifiquen. 'Vendimos Unix', es lo que dirán."
And finally, about Spain and the rest of Europe and the UK, they have plans, all right, and Darl says just as they are have been talking to businesses and governmental agencies in the US, they have lawyers overseas to do the same there: "Until now, most of our legal efforts have been concentrated in the US, but we have hired attorneys in Spain, Germany and Great Britain, and we are having discussions with organizations and businesses.
"Hasta ahora, la mayor parte de nuestros esfuerzos legales se han centrado en EE UU, pero estamos contratando abogados en España, Alemania o Gran Bretaña, y estamos teniendo discusiones con organizaciones y empresas.
"Q: You are going to sue governments, too? In Spain, as you must know, there are two [independent states?] communities (Extremadura and Andalucia) where there have been huge deployments of Linux.
"P. ¿Van a demandar también a los gobiernos? En España, como debe de saber, hay dos comunidades autónomas [Extremadura y Andalucía] que han realizado grandes desarrollos de Linux.
"Many countries do not wish to be on the wrong side of the Intellectual property issue, and they are asking us to inform them. We are talking with many and diverse governmental agencies in the United States, and we hope to do the same in Europe."
"Muchos países no quieren posicionarse en el lado equivocado de la propiedad intelectual, y nos están pidiendo que les informemos. Estamos hablando con diversas organizaciones gubernamentales de Estados Unidos, y esperamos hacer lo mismo en Europa."
He warns users that they should think carefully about SCO's claims, because they expect to win. It's an IP war, says McBride, with Linus the head of the open source community, and on the other side, McBride says he is the leader of the proprietary software and the lawyers' group. Linus' side may despise him, but, he says, his side feels very differently. Here is who he says is on his side, and yes, he includes Sun:
"But those who respect intellectual property rights don't hate me. A lot of folks in Hollywood and the music industry are on my side. Those who sell proprietary software are too, like Microsoft and Sun, and they don't hate me. And it's mighty rare that those who sell operating systems just give them away and stay in business long."
"Pero los que respetan los derechos de propiedad intelectual no me odian; mucha gente de Hollywood y de la industria de la música está en el mismo lado. Los que venden software para vivir de ello, como Microsoft o Sun, no me odia. Y es muy raro que haya vendedores de sistemas operativos que lo regalen y hagan negocio de ello."
Finally, the interviewer asks him if he'd do anything different, if he had the last year to do over again. Nope. He wouldn't change a thing. He says he is like a bullfighter. He'll keep fighting until he kills the bull. And he says IBM is lying:
"Q: IBM says it had no contact with you before you sued them.
"P. IBM dice que no tuvo ningún contacto con ustedes antes de la demanda.
"That is a total lie. There's no other way to put it. We spoke with IBM for two months before we brought the lawsuit. It's totally dishonest on their part to say we didn't speak with them. Two days before we filed the lawsuit, I got a call from an adviser to an executive at IBM. And I said, "Did you hear we have problems?" And he answered, "Yes, we have problems." They are lying if they say we had no contact with them."
"Eso es una mentira flagrante. No hay otra forma de describirlo. Hablamos con IBM durante dos meses antes de la demanda. Es completamente deshonesto por su parte decir que no hablamos con ellos. Dos días antes de que la demanda se presentara, recibí una llamada de una persona del consejo ejecutivo de IBM. Me dijo: 'He oído que tenemos problemas'. Y yo le contesté: 'Sí, tenemos problemas'. Están mintiendo cuando dicen que no contactamos con ellos."
No wonder BayStar is worrying. Speaking of Fortune, there was a very interesting article on what motivated the Microsoft-Sun detente. It says they were motivated by their common fear of Linux and their need to position themselves to deal with the power of open source. I think we've seen in the last few weeks how valuable it is to have an international community reading SCO news in many languages. If you see an article in another language you think Groklaw should know about, please send it, along with your translation of the most important paragraphs. You can email me by clicking on the icon of the envelope, on the left.
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
Please put all corrections in this thread, so I can find them quickly. thanks [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: Baldy on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- typos - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Corrections here, please - Authored by: m_si_M on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- "más de una hora y media" - Authored by: JeffK on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:53 PM EDT
- o - y - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- Nothing to do with the users - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- Comunidades autónomas - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 04:16 AM EDT
- Darl left Novel before ammendment 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Nit: Accent on the "i" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 09:03 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
I have been wondering something for a while now.
From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong), SCO originally sued IBM
over Trade Secrets and such and claimed $3 billion in damages (up to $5 billion
now).
However, since the dropping of the trade secrets portion of the lawsuit,
shouldn't that have dropped the value of the suit as well?
Did SCO claim the stuff about Trade Secrets just to pump up the amount that they
could sue for? If so, it looks like it is just another pump-n-dump scheme....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spuzzzzzzz on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
SCO's Novel strategy sounds like a no winner:
Court: The contract states
you did not sell the copyrights
Witness 1: We intended to, that's what we
agreed on.
Darl: I was there! We sold the rights!
Witness 2: Darl
speaks the truth - we sold the rights
Court: If you sold the rights, where
is it in the contract?
I don't care how much Darl and Co say what they
intended, if it isn't written down, it did not happen.
A lot
of folks in Hollywood and the music industry are on my side. Those who sell
proprietary software are too, like Microsoft and Sun...
Why am
I not surprised by this?
--- Programmer: A biological system designed
to convert coffee and cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why am I not surprised by this? - Authored by: JustFree on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:26 PM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: charlie Turner on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: Sander on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:29 PM EDT
- Especially for copyrights. The law is designed to avoid this. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:18 AM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:54 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skimitar on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
I wonder if Darl went alone or took his bodyguards with
him? Darl, the brave Ringbearer sneeks into the realm of
Novell, where the shadows lie. Really, he's more of a
Gollum.
I wish that he had asked Linus the lightweight question he
claims he would (did his nerve fail him, or is it empty
boasting??) as Linus' response would have no doubt made
him look the fool he is.
I wouldn't be suprised if Linus now answers it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
I found it very amusing that the Fortune cover feature Darl McBride
wrapped in a very long printout detailing the extremely convoluted
history of the development of Unix. If anyone needed an illustration of
just how silly it is for SCO (or anyone else, for that matter) to claim that
they own all of Unix -- there it was, wrapped around darlin' Darl.
Fortune, of course, ignored the irony.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
Other than it being fairly consistent with Darl's apparent level of ethics --
what evidence does anyone have that he isn't lying about sneaking into the Novel
conference?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
'I was in the staff meetings,' McBride protests. 'We [at
Novell] were selling Unix. We were exiting the
business...'
Hey, Darl... if you (at Novell) were
exiting the business, how come the contract said Novell still got 95% of the
revenues, huh? Doesn't sound to me like you were "exiting the business"...
sounds more like you were hiring a business manager.
For that matter, I
wonder at the veracity of McBride's claims that he was involved with the APA at
all. McBride's bio on sco.com claims he worked at Novell from 1988 to 1996, and
was VP/GM of Novell's Embedded Systems Division at the end of his tenure there.
(Before that, he was involved with Novell's Japan division.) The Asset Purchase
Agreement is dated September 19, 1995, so there is a bit of overlap in these two
time periods. I have to wonder, though, if McBride's duties as VP of Embedded
Systems would have involved him at all with the deal between Santa Cruz
Operation and Novell. The way McBride talked, he was privy to the whole thing
and knows what went on in the deal better than anyone now working at Novell. Why
do I have trouble swallowing that?
--- "When I say something, I put
my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
but reading this, plus all the woe that is going on in the world has left me,
right at this minute as I type, sick to my stomach.
I was born with the Santa Clause lie. I was told the Santa Clause lie. I
believed the Santa Clause lie. And part of that lie is we are born free, with
certain rights we are born with.
I now know, with Darl McBride, Bill Gates, The Bush's, Osama, and a whole slew
of other characters, I'm only free so long as I don't follow their rules.
It's a sad day for me. All the mystic, magic, beauty, and joy of my Santa
Clause lie life is gone. All that is left is the stark reality there is a whole
lot of bad in the world, and not enough good.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- Santa still lives!!! - Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: math geezer on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:00 PM EDT
- We are at war. - Authored by: mobrien_12 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:57 PM EDT
- Who? (way OT) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- Why I tell small children the truth about Santa - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT
- Life is not that tough ! - Authored by: tizan on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:05 AM EDT
- Yeah, me too - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- The Santa Claus Lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:26 AM EDT
- Santa is a metaphor - Authored by: rlbell on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:59 AM EDT
- I believe in Santa Clause Like I believe in love.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Maybe this is soo OT - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:20 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
I would not have had him do anything differently either. If some competent ceo
had been there, the FUD could have lasted years. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
It is interesting that Novell wanted to sell Unix lock, stock and barrel to SCO
(according to McBride), and yet explicitly excluded copyrights in the main
contract.
And they put the trademark into the hands of the Open Group, not SCO. And they
retained royalties from existing licensees. Not quite every lock, stock and
barrel seems to have been included in the deal.
This was one of those messy, "the devil is in the detail" kind of
sales - not a lock, stock and barrel kind of sale. And as the original agreement
explicitly excluded copyrights, and the amendment is murky, to say the least,
this is an issue about valid transfer of copyright.
Now over to Judge Kimball to decide the Novell case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- Judge Kimball, Novell, and old BSDi Ruling - Authored by: brian on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:16 AM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- Darl Secretly Attended Novell's Brainshare; the Novell Strategy; and Legal Activity in Spain, Ge - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
So a written contract can now be overturned in court on Darl McBrides hearsay
& possibly (but unlikely) the hearsay of a buddy of his?
Puh 'lease...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
Even if Novell sold the copyrights to Santa Cruz Operation, that's not SCO Group
and the last I heard they still haven't been able to find that contract. If SCO
Group can prove that Santa Cruz Operation purchased the copyrights then all that
means is that the company that is now Tarantella owns the copyrights and that if
anyone had a case it would be Tarantella not SCO Group. SCO is really burying
themselves into a hole though with their revisionist history by trying to claim
they're 25 years old and they act like Santa Cruz Operation merged into SCO and
no longer exists.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bonzai on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
If Linus wants to see the 'copied' lines, he has to sign a non-disclosure
agreement but Darl thinks he can talk about staff meetings at his previous
employer to the press. That's strange.'I was in the staff
meetings,' McBride protests. 'We [at Novell] were selling
Unix.' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
But I worked at Novell when we bought UNIX. And I worked at
Novell when they sold UNIX. I know what I'm talking about. I know the people who
worked there at the time, the guys who signed the documents, and I know what
they will say at the trial. They'll say, 'We sold
UNIX.'"
Then it appears that "the guys" never talked to
"the lawyers" who drew up the contract, and then didn't bother to read it over
before signing on the dotted line. Or they were unaware that selling "the UNIX
business" was different from selling "the UNIX copyrights" (especially since
copyrights were specifically excluded in the APA).
And let's note that none
of "the guys" has come forward yet in support of SCO's
interpretation. --- 73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xyzzy on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
"But those who respect intellectual property rights don't hate me. A lot of
folks in Hollywood and the music industry are on my side. Those who sell
proprietary software are too, like Microsoft and Sun, and they don't hate me.
And it's mighty rare that those who sell operating systems just give them away
and stay in business long."
I thought I was working in a service industry. I get paid for my knowledge and
support of products.
Shows how long it is going to take the dinosaurs to make the mind shift.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Baystar has always said it was acting for investors. IF Baystar acquired the
Unix IP, whatever that is, I think those investors would have to come out into
the open. They would also have to state in filings any corporate interest they
had.
I think that is the last thing they want. If push came to shove I still think
there are others better positioned to purchase the IP from any bankruptcy, like
Novell for example.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
In the transcript of Darl McBride's interview by Dan Farber and Charles Cooper
done back in July 2003 you find gems like this regarding Novell:
"Dan: Well, Novell would say you don't actually own those copyrights
fully.
McBride: Yeah well, the Novell thing. They came out and made a claim that held
up for maybe four days and then we put that to bed. If you go back and talk to
Novell I guarantee what they'll say, which is they don't have a claim on those
copyrights anymore."
This interview occurred well after the June 26th letter to Darl from Novell.
The letter available here :
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/6_26_03_n-sco.pdf
Darl should have known that Novell was still making claims on the copyright.
However he continues to deceive investors and the gernal public by claiming that
Novell agrees with him in that the copyrights were transferred to SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
I'm a little confused.
Is the quote from the body of the Fortune article?
At first read it sounded like Darl was being quoted and read that way the
admissions are very damning.
Read as a quote from the body of article it sounds like Fortune is catching on.
Good news either way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
Did I understand this right? Darl went to the Novell thingy and wanted
to troll?
Would it now be a safe bet that he's a regular troll here
on Groklaw?
PJ, have you ever checked IP addresses of Groklaw commenters
with IP addresses assigned to The SCO Group?
--- Open and Honest -
Open Source
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
PJ translates Darl thusly:
I was wanting to ask Linus to explain
to all the Linux users what are the problems they face if they start using
Linux. And what is his opinion of those companies who tell their customers that
there are no problems and say to just go ahead and keep using Linux? There
absolutely is a problem, and we need to get it resolved, instead of pretending
it doesn't exist.
And
Many countries do not
wish to be on the wrong side of the Intellectual property issue, and they are
asking us to inform them. We are talking with many and diverse governmental
agencies in the United States, and we hope to do the same in
Europe.
I know, I know, we've beat this horse near to death,
but Darl is still at it. Offereing to defend someone from a
law suit, from intellectual property "issues" would be an act of great kindness,
unless.... Unless you are the one bringing the law suit. Unless you are the
one, the only one, who claims that there is such an issue.
Under those circumstances, it doesn't look like kindness; it looks like
extortion.
Darl, you are still on about goverments wanting to be informed
about IP issues. Really? What property could you have, Darl, that any
goverment on the planet could not simply take from you without so much as a
"by-your-leave"? In whose court would you sue them? Twit. Look up "Eminent
Domain". You should try, Darl, to stick to the truth, you are not a
sophisticated liar. Once one part of your statement is recognized as absurd,
the rest gets swept out with the same broom.
The Flatlander
First, they
failed at Linux. Then they failed at OpenServer/Unixware. Then came this
campaign. No wonder Baystar, (read: Microsoft), wants their money back. Darl's
too incompetent to do even FUD well. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
Any more than we hate a tick carrying lyme disease. Maybe that's an
appropriate comparison. Darl McBride, the Lyme Disease of software! Kinda
catchy don't ya think?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
IANAL, but...
The judge will interpret intent of parties when the language
is unclear as to what was agreed. I think it is quite clear that Novell did not
convey any copyrights in the base agreement. I think it is less clear that
Novell conveyed the business of marketing UNIX to "Old SCO". If there is a
contention between SCOG and Novell, it is most likely around just what Novell
-did- sell to SCO. Like what has been said before, what did they buy,
especially since SCO gave up stock and cash to get it. But, clearly NOVELL
maintains 95% of that revenue (or some piece of it, like maybe existing
customers, or something like that). Plus there is the bit about change of
control of either party -- That's not change in a CEO, but change in ownership,
as in stock and asset buyout. I think the contract is quite clear on that
point.
Secondly, it is quite clear in the second Amendment to the APA that
Novell recognized a gap, and agreed to assign copyrights to "Old SCO" as
necessary to conduct the business of whatever it was Old SCO purchased. I
believe there were some copyrights for documentation (e.g., owner's manuals)
included there, but that is not source code.
So, in my opinion, the legal
points of contention, for which Judge Kimball must interpret the parties intent
resides around:
1. What did Old SCO buy?
2. Did Novell convey
any copyrights to Old SCO, or their successors or assigns, after Amendment 2 was
executed? Because, IMO, the language shows intent to convey as "required", but
no promise or commitment to transfer anything.
Now, if
Novell sends some village idiots in to defend their case, and the judge
continually prompts the defense "Mr. X., are there any objections?", or "Does
the defense wish to cross examine?", Novell will be sunk. Why? Well the judge
is seeing a miscarriage of justice in the works and he cannot stop it. But,
Novell can object and re-direct and cross examine to produce enough doubt in
SCOG's witness's/expert's testimony. Someone, anyone, testifying to the intent
of transferring copyrights will be objected right out of the record. The
language is clear there.
Let's face it, whatever SCOG wishes the APA and
Amendment 2 to convey to them, the only unclear intent in the contract is what
Old SCO purchased (clearly not copyrights), and what Novell might have
transferred on some other piece of paper after Amendment 2 was executed in 1996.
Neither document conveys ownership of copyrighted code to Old SCO.
The
only thing I see coming out of SCOG v. Novell is that SCOG will finally know
what they bought from Old SCO/Tarantella, and that they have NO
copyrights to UNIX code. Unless of course, Judge Kimball has a flair for drama
and sadism, and remands the case to a state court as a "contract" issue. It
does not sound like him, since he has seen SCOG use every legal twist they can
to wriggle out of the irons...SCOG wants it to be a contract issue (I think it
does have some contract nuances) and therefore a state jurisdiction, Novell
needs it to be a copyright issue (conveyance of copyrights to SCO) and therefore
a federal case.
When do they meet...Tuesday? Wow, it'll be like a broken
field run to a touchdown, or a broken play for a 20 yard loss for SCO.
Mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Contract Law and Interpretation - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- Contract Law and Interpretation - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- NOVELL maintains 95% of that revenue - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Novell's Lawyers - Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:04 PM EDT
- Judge will decide whether APA+Amendment 2 clearly transfers the copyrights - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Intent does not apply to copyright assignments - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:30 AM EDT
- Contract Law and Interpretation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:38 AM EDT
- Slander of Title, not Non-performance of Contract - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- No TRANSFER of Copyright REQUIRED to effect Assignment of Required Rights - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- What did oldSCO sell to Caldera? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:19 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
Of course Darl didn't want to ask Linus that question. The obvious reponse
would be "OK, where's the problem? Show us where the problem is and we
will remove it".
[crickets]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
The promise of (presumably huge) lawsuits in European countries could be playing
to the "patriotism" of US courts, who are often blatently biased in
cases of an american vs a non-american party.
"This IP is worth trillions to the US economy if we allow it ..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
I'm pretty certain that Darl did contact IBM before the lawsuit. I remember
hearing about the discussions at the time.
It was Chrysler that SCO didn't contact before launching that lawsuit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
Regarding what IBM said after SCO threatend the lawsuit
(http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=41480):
CRN: What do you intend to do if IBM wants to take this to trial?
McBride : By June 13, if there is no response from IBM, we will revoke their AIX
contract so they won't have source code to use it. The judge will then make up
his or her mind.
CRN: Have settlement talks begun?
McBride: The phones are not ringing off the hook. From what I hear, IBM will
blacken the Utah sky with lawyers.
If there is no response (i.e., there hadn't been a response as of Apr 24).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
Swearing in Darl to tell the truth and only the truth will be meaningless
because the man is clearly incapable of telling the truth. So, since he
obviously has an axe to grind with Linux and IBM and Novell, would Darl's
testimony even be allowed as to speaking about Novell's intent? Yes, he was
around during the time of the contracts but with his obviously biased objective,
would the truth actually be told in court? It wasn't in the press and was
stretched pretty thin in some of the motions. What could the other parties do
to exclude his testimony as to the "intent" of the Unix sale?
---
Bill Catz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
"But I worked at Novell when we bought UNIX. And I worked at Novell when they
sold UNIX. I know what I'm talking about. I know the people who worked there at
the time, the guys who signed the documents, and I know what they will say at
the trial. They'll say, 'We sold UNIX.'""
Now as I look at the lose
manor that Darl interpets the events around him I must say that, too me at
least, his word and opinion is utterly worthless.
Darl is a double talking
rat that will say absolutely anything to further his cause. Truth or no.
And
he is still daring anyone to call him on it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grayhawk on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
Darl forgot that they really don't have the copyrights to Unix since if they did
they wouldn't have asked Novell to hand them over....
http://advisor.com/doc/13584
SCO is requesting that Novell assign to SCO all the copyrights it has
registered, refrain from claiming ownership of those copyrights, and retract
statements it's made regarding ownership.
You don't ask to be assigned something that you already have in your possession.
---
All ships are safe in a harbour but that is not where they were meant to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: josmith42 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
"But those who respect intellectual property rights don't hate
me."
This of course implies that those who don't respect
intellectual property do hate him. Darl is also assuming that the entire open
source community hates him, and therefore doesn't respect intellectual property.
There was a discussion about this kind of thing
here
on Groklaw. I agree with the originator of the post. Open source
programmers have to respect IP way more than any other kind of programmer. It
is there for everybody to see, so it is really easy for violations of IP to be
caught. With propietary software, it is much harder, and therefore easier to
hide IP violations.
No Darl, we don't hate you, but we also have the
utmost respect for intellectual property, possibly more than you
do. --- Forty-two: the answer to the question of life, the universe,
and everything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
Darl:
"What is going on is that Novell has tried to stand
between us and the users. Novell says that UNIX belongs to them. But I worked at
Novell when we bought UNIX. And I worked at Novell when they sold UNIX. I know
what I'm talking about. I know the people who worked there at the time, the guys
who signed the documents, and I know what they will say at the trial. They'll
say, 'We sold UNIX.'"
United States Copyright Law, section
201(a):
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by
operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or
memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights
conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.
Whom to
trust: Darl or Law? Personally, I'd go for the law, but that's just me ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
1) They did not own the copyright of all parts of system V, parts belong to BSD,
SUN etc.
2) They enhanced AT&T Unix with Novell technology and did not want to sell
some NetWare copyrights
3) They wanted the Unix copyrights and patents for their own IP war chest
4) They did not want the Unix IP in the hands of a company with a 30% microsoft
stake like Old SCO 1995.
Can anyone back up, refute or amend this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
""I was wanting to ask Linus to explain to all the Linux users what are the
problems they face if they start using Linux. And what is his opinion of those
companies who tell their customers that there are no problems and say to just go
ahead and keep using Linux? ..."
And Darl stopped himself just in time
when he realized Linus' response would be "I agree with those companies 110%,
you dumb schmuck." --- Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a
minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PM on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
I suppose he is telling everyone in Europe that he is very influential in USA
and has the Oval Office's unlisted phone number.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Darl's mouth - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
Imagine yourself being on a jury listening for weeks on end to SCO lawyers
claiming the intent to transfer copyrights. Now just as you go to deliberate the
intent a IBM lawyer during the closing statement asks you to remember that all
and I mean all MONEY from any unix related sales went directly to Novell. In
addition he also reminds you that the law states that the transfer HAS GOT TO BE
IN WRITING yet the the transfer specifically excludes copyrights. I don't thing
a single solitary person sitting on a jury is going to side with SCO. People are
going to naturally follow the money and all money leads to Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:15 PM EDT |
PJ pointed out recently that some of TSCOG's assertions indicate they knew what
they were doing by distributing GNULinux under the GPL. They of course have
tried to say they didn't know it at the time. However, they continued to do it
long after they made that claim. Regardless of what else they may dispute with
IBM, they're toast on anything in Linux being theirs to now sell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fb on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
The guy claimed over and over again there were "millions of lines" inserted
into Linux.
The guy claims there were "MIT rocket scientists" who did a "deep
dive" into the source code and came up with those millions of lines.
The guy
claims they "own C++" and still get oodles of revenue from licensing it.
Why
on earth is anybody taking anything he says seriously? What evidence is
there that he ever attended a single meeting at Novell? What reason is there to
believe there's a single former Novell exec who could testify the way he's
claiming?
All the evidence suggests he's simply lying again. The big lie: so
incredible you question your own sanity for disbelieving it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
Seeing that Darl already has zero credibility, does anyone who knows the truth
believe him on this?
I don't.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
in hopes of picking up a better brain. Unfortunately, he couldn't convince
anyone that their brain was really his IP. Plus he has never understood the term
"share".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
DARL LIES
Most of what he says is just the usual type SCO bizarre legal theories and other
deceitful claims. I think it is designed to boost the stock price.
For example, he worked on embedded systems so is extremely unlikely to have been
involved at all in the Novell to Santa Cruz sale.
The only knowledge he has of the intent of the agreement, is what he heard 2nd
hand at staff meetings (i.e. hearsay).
Darl's hearsay evidence is essentially "I heard at a staff meeting that
Novell was selling the UNIX business, therefore they meant to transfer all
copyrights.". He bolsters that by connecting it to his current
interpretation of the APA and Amendment 2.
But even Darl's hearsay evidence is not consistent with HIS OWN earlier views.
Before June 2003, Darl was writing letters to Novell asking them to transfer the
copyrights. Therefore we have written evidence, from Darl himself, that he
didn't believe Novell transfered the copyrights, and only changed his
interpretation retrospectively, some time during or after June 2003.
If he ever is a witness called to testify about his interpretation of the
hearsay that he heard at a Novell staff meeting (unlikely!) --- then the other
side is going to quite clearly point out that what he claims to have heard, can
not possible be true, as he himself said something else entirely, in writing,
thru June 2003. Darl's evidence either perjury or verging on it.
ANYWAY THE MOST INTERESTING BIT...
1. He continues to chooses to characterize this as a battle about
"intellectual property"
Yet he has told the court that the IBM case is not about intellectual property,
or it's about the contracts.
2. He chooses to characterize the battle as SCO v Linus
This is rather bizarre, as Linus is one person they have chosen not to sue.
SCO are involved in litigation with 5 other parties, none of whom are Linus.
What a loon (Darl not Linus :))
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
Must be that part of Hollywood scrambling over the dead bodies of Novell &
IBM to buy Darl's "Linux IP license".
Hollywood agrees with Darl - BWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
"The one advantage SCO might have in this absolutely critical dispute with
Novell is that McBride was present when the sales contract was being negotiated
-- though he happened to be on the Novell side of the table back then. By
contrast, none of Novell's current top management were. 'I was in the staff
meetings,' McBride protests. 'We [at Novell] were selling Unix. We were exiting
the business. I've gone back and talked to all of those guys. We have statements
from them. We know what they're going to say as this goes through.'"
The fact is that Novell was exiting UNIX. However, the Darl is stretching the
truth to the breaking point by trying to create the impression that Novell was
exiting the UNIX business by selling sold everything to Old SCO. In fact, the
APA specifically excluded patents, trademarks and copyrights while Amendment 2
represented nothing more than a conditional agreement from Novell to turn over
those copyrights that Old SCO could demonstrate that it needed to run Novell's
proxy licensing business (Remember Old SCO's 5% licensing commission). If Novell
was trying to sell all of its UNIX assets to Old SCO, then the APA and Amendment
2 certainly don't reflect that that intention. And the question arises as to why
Novell and Old SCO would agree on one one set of terms, and nail down that
agreement by writing up a different set of terms. At the risk of repeating
myself to death, no one put a gun up to the heads of either parties to compel
them to sign that agreement as written.
I'd love to hear the Darl testify, so that his credibility in court can be
utterly destroyed on cross-examination: I certainly want to hear from him why
he signed off on the terms of the APA as written, assuming that he was part of
the negotiating team - and the same question will be asked of every ex-Novell
executive who testifies in SCOG's favor. If the Darl starts claiming that he was
only at the staff meetings and not part of the negotiations, then we nuke his
credibility by putting that fact together with the fact that his testimony has
an agenda and thus is more likely to be self-serving plus his more hyperbolic
statements say at SCOWorld.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
"Until now, most of our legal efforts have been concentrated in the US, but
we have hired attorneys in Spain, Germany and Great Britain, and we are having
discussions with organizations and businesses." Darl McBride.
I understand that Baystar wants Gregory Blepp to be more outspoken: (1) Gregory
Blepp can say anything he wants in Germany, as long as SCOG wants to pay the tab
for any of his utterances (10000 euros and up per legally actionable instance);
(2) I doubt that the fact that SCOG's copyrights are under a cloud is going
unnoticed in GB, so (3) that leaves Spain where he is hoping that a Spanish law
firm will deliver an expert opinion in SCOG's favor. I think the Spaniards are a
lot tougher and a lot smarter than they look, and I very much doubt that they
will take that Spanish law firm's expert opinion at face value anymore than we
take the opinion of any of SCOG's lawyers at face value.
Yeah, Darl. We are scared to death of you![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
2.6.6 is out as of now.
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
Darl present when Novell sold Unix properties to Santa Cruz? Darl has two
Novell ex-executives who will testify on his behalf? APA amendment excluding
copyrights was a typo and second amendment transferred all copyrights to SCOG,
never mind SCOG has never produced any document explicitly saying so, as
required by law? [How do we know Darl didn't write that second amendment
himself?]
Seeing that Darl already has zero credibility, does or would anyone who knows
the truth believe him on this?
I don't.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
"But those who respect intellectual property rights don't hate me. A lot of
folks in Hollywood and the music industry are on my side. Those who sell
proprietary software are too, like Microsoft and Sun, and they don't hate me.
And it's mighty rare that those who sell operating systems just give them away
and stay in business long." Darl McBride.
I have no doubt that the Sun will be very happy to hear it from the Darl that
they are on the Darl's side, and that the Darl is their self-appointed
spokesman.
I love his phrase "those who respect intellectual property rights don't
hate me", considering that he is trying to steal the IP of every
contributor to Linux by trampling their copyrights. Even now, his firm is
distributing Linux to his customers in violation of the terms of the GPL AND the
copyrights of the contributors to Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
There is so much in this case that just doesn't add up.
(1) Who was the CEO at Novell when (some unknown portion of) UNIX went from
Novell to Caldera? Ray Noorda.
(2) Who became the CEO of Caldera? Ray Noorda.
(3) What organization founded and is the primary owner of The Canopy Group? The
Noorda Family Trust. (NFT is privately-owned and therefore not subject to
disclosure laws that a publically-owned company would have to obey.)
Now, if Ray Noorda had wanted Caldera to OWN UNIX OUTRIGHT, then Ray Noorda as
CEO of Novell would have had no trouble making sure that the documents were
absolutely clear, air-tight, and legally binding. (Whatever you think of the
man, he was no fool.) But the documents are so vague that nobody knows who
received what.
Darl can rant and rave (and he does) and claim that he "knows" what
Novell "intended" to sell, but he has no documentation to support that
claim. Why? It seems that the sale of UNIX wasn't particularly important to
Ray Noorda, the man who engineered the whole deal. In any case, it seems like
he would be the man who knows what Novell really "intended" to do many
years ago, not Darl.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rann on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
Big hairy deal that Darl "snuck in" without being noticed.... did anyone see
him there anytime during the speech? He didn't give any evidence that he had
actually done it! He never once quotes Linus!!!! And now we are finding out, no
questions were allowed (after Darl claims he "almost" asked the question). All I
can say is "Show us the proof... just like all those million lines of
code!"
If Darl did attend, would Novell have even CARED he was there
in the first place, provided he payed his fee? From what I saw at Real World
Linux, Novell's attittude was they are in the right about this and will
succeed legally.
I was taking my Novell Netware certifications in
1996-97. I asked the Memorex Telex school administrator if we could set a
Unixware machine to connect to the school's Netware 4.11 network "as many
companies also have a Unix system sharing the same backbone". The reply was one
of derision as I was bluntly told that while they did have licenses to do that,
Novell had sold off Unixware to get rid of the costly overhead of a dying OS to
a sucker company but retained the licensing fees "while they lasted". The
impression I got from him was not to bother, Unix would be gone within a few
short years. If some Canadian reseller knew this, why didn't Darl McBride as he
sat in at all those staff meetings? When you think about it, it makes far more
business sense that if they could dump most or all the costs of Unixware and
keep the licensing fees, why bother selling off this lucrative-for-now income???
In this light, the APA's wording makes very good sense!
Methinks,
Pinnochio McBride's nose is growing again!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tizan on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
Why did Baystar buy $20 million of stuff more even though they wanted their
money back prior to that ? What is such a good investment in SCO these days ?
Why isn't Dear Darl not keeping his mouth closed but coming up with things that
proves he is or has been lying ?
If FOSS/Linux is such a bad idea (e.g Didio assertion) why not let the market
play it out (e.g the Yugo never became a best seller despite being cheap but the
TCO was high as it was always at the mechanics' place)
---
tizan: Knowledge is shared[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:26 AM EDT |
Let's not play the dirty SCO way. What goes around comes around.
If Novell really intended to sell Unix to SCO and if that was the original
intention of the negotiations, it should not be up to a bunch of shysters to
interpret the contract 8 years down the line in order to establish the copyright
issue.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dont be a victim of Darl's lies - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:19 AM EDT
- Fair is fair - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:30 AM EDT
- Fair is fair - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:47 AM EDT
- Fair is fair - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 09:54 AM EDT
- ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
The Spanish article says that Mr McBride is known as "Darl Vader" in the Linux
community.
I hadn't heard that, and it doesn't seem appropriate. Darl is
more of a blustering clown than a powerful evil figure.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:00 AM EDT |
Quoting Darl McBride from the Fortune Magazine article:
"The
other huge question mark left by the same contract revolves around the Unix
copyrights, which are SCO's sole basis for demanding licenses from Linux end
users. Notwithstanding the claims of the press release heralding the deal, a
critical appendix to the contract states that 'all copyrights' are excluded from
the sale. SCO claims that this was a typo -- a whopping typo, to be sure --
that was corrected in an amendment a year later. But the amendment itself is
confusing and vague."
Now, rewind a bit to June 6, 2003 in
Darl McBride's letter to Jack Messman, Novell's CEO:
"[..]
Any question of whether the UNIX copyrights transferred to SCO under the
Sept. 19, 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement was clarified in Amendment No. 2 to
the Asset Purchase Agreement date October 16, 1996
[..]."
Darl is apparently referring to the same APA
revision in these two quotes.
So let me get this straight, about a year
ago he stated, "any question [..] was clarified [in APA]." Yet he claimed
recently that this APA was "confusing and vague."
So, which is it...
"confusing and vague" or "clarified?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
I think it's unlikely in the extreme that Darl is telling the truth. He'd be
recognized instantly, for his awful hair alone. What would Darl get out of some
stupid conference anyhow? Conferences are basically pep rallies and a lot of
advertising.
And add to that, Darl claims he has hired bodyguards to protect him from the
Linux community, so he went to a Linux centered conference, incognito? If he
actually feared for his life, wouldn't this be a kind of silly thing to do?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 03:45 AM EDT |
It is significant that SCO's legal offensive in Europe concerns precisely the
countries in which Microsoft is the most challenged by Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
"Do you think that SCO could sue somebody in Europe and have the trial in a
U.S. court?"
Well, in the case of a multinational, maybe. But with european governments/etc,
obviously not.
No, the point was, are they dangling this as a carrot to the US courts in the
existing cases.
"Look, don't shoot us down, we're going to bring in huge amounts of foreign
money for the US. And by damaging Linux we're going to bring it in for M$, Sun,
Apple, etc too."
If SCO loses its IBM/Novell cases, that cash cow is dead. But if they were to
win, the political lobbying to enforce their IP through World Trade bodies
becomes very powerful indeed.
And did I say, lots of big US companies headed by M$ stand to benefit if that
happens?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stoneshop on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
Darl must have been lured by the words 'Brain' and 'share', as he might have
come to the conclusion that a brain would be a useful thing to have, given that
all his opponents in those lawsuits clearly have one, and if he'd been able to
get a shared one, well, maybe that's not as good as one completely for himself,
but this way it's free and he doesn't have to plunder SCO's dwindling warchest.
---
Rik
IANALJLMOY
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
If Novell really thought that SCO had a case except for the question of disputed
ownership of copyrights, they surely would be going into partnership with SCO to
get a share of the billions of dollars to be made out of UNIX litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: technolalia on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
Says Darl:
"Until now, most of our legal efforts have been concentrated in the US, but
we have hired attorneys in Spain, Germany and Great Britain, and we are having
discussions with organizations and businesses."
Is there any more information about SCO's activities in the UK? It's where I
live, and I'm up for doing the neighbourhood watch thing.
Any leads? Any takers?
John
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
Years ago I was working on the mandatory requirements for a contract. My buddy
came over Friday night and noticed my papers for the contract all over the
coffee table. He said, being an attorney do you want to know what this really
says? Sure. In 5 minutes he made swiss cheese out of what I had written in the
contract verses what I had intended.
My friend, now a Federal judge, saved us a lot of money on how to legally say
and write what you really want. I only lost 8 months of my time to learn this
valuable lesson in law.
So, Daryl,
whatever your conversations may have been, that is what they were conversations.
The written contract and the legal interpretation is what realy counts. SCO has
swiss cheese. The written contract is all that counts.
Ken King[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
The SCO Legal strategy seems to be predicated on the assumption that
"juries are stupid, and will beleive anything a fast talking lawyer
says."
As a citizen and potential jurist, I'm personally insulted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
ok, i'm not sure if this has been posted, but has anyone attempted to confirm
Darls where abouts on the day inquestion? did he schedual plane tickets, was he
seen in Lindon Utah?,,,,,
it's always fun to catch him in a lie.
---
=====
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: dracoverdi on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
This sounds like a sort of fantasy of what he wishes he had done. Like a
child's fantasy of telling off the teacher. Why do we care what he almost did?
He almost had courage enough to ask Linus a question? Nobody recognized
him? Could be because none of his friends were there and everybody else is
ignoring him.
---
Pizza is an acceptable breakfast.
Just think of it as a large pepperoni danish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: utahbob55 on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
Gotta think Darl is blowing hot air again because I was at Novell when the
contracts for Unix were done. I don't remember anything about giving Unix away.
(of course I was only in tech support and wasn't anywhere near any of the
meetings, BUT I WAS THERE! just like Darl ;)
I would just like to make one other point. When I bought my house they told me
to read the contracts because it didn't matter what I _thought_ was in the
contract, what mattered was what was actually written and that would be what I
got. Period! Wishes (or imaginings) didn't count.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
People keep questioning the strangely shifting math in SCO's damage
claims
against IBM. PJ undoubtedly knows better than I, but it's my
experience that
courts seldom look at the damage claims until the case
itself is about to be
settled in favor of the plaintiff. One result of that is
that the suing party
is often quite sloppy in what they demand. Their
damage claims exist primarily
to intimidate the defendant, impress the
press, and (in SCO's case) dupe
investors.
A case in point was when the J. R. R. Tolkien estate sued me,
claiming
copyright infringement for my Lord of the Rings chronology,
Untangling Tolkien (now in print). They asserted that it
infringed no
less than ten Tolkien books, including some I had never
seen and some so
obscure the sales in perpetutity would never equal the
damages they were
demanding had my book totally halted the sales of
their book. (FYI: my book is
unlike anything in the Tolkien corpus or any
other reference about
Tolkien.)
Strangely, for each of the allegedly infringed books, from
best-selling to
obscure, they were claiming the same $750,000 in damages.
Even more
strange, they added up those ten charges of $750,000 each and
came up with a total that was the same $750,000 rather than the $7.5
million it should have been. I represented myself for most of the lawsuit,
so
when I asked opposing counsel the reason for that, he refused to
answer. I
suspect he was embarrassed by the blunder.
Shortly afterward they dropped
their damage claim altogether,
confirming my suspicion that it was intended to
intimidate and
that their lawyers regarded $750,000 as a sort of magic
number for
doing that. Having failed to intimidate, they knew that an amount
that
high directed against a mere writer was only attracting the sympathy of
the press and possibly the court.
I fought on and, just before the judge
would have ruled on concurrent
motions for summary judgment, the estate backed
down, offering to
settle out of court for only a "few changes" in the text. I'd
fought them to
the point where they knew they'd probably lose and no Manhattan
law
firm can afford to lose to a mere Seattle writer on summary judgment.
The
judge confirmed that by later dismissing their lawsuit "with
prejudice"--a
judge's way of saying, "Don't every bring this lawsuit to
me again."
Given
their not-from-kindness change of heart, I couldn't come up with
an excuse for
burdening the court by continuing the lawsuit, which is
unfortunate. No court
has ever ruled on whether a chronology of a
complex work of fiction is
scholarly fair use. This would have done just
that.
In summary, courts pay
little attention to the strange math of damage
claims until it become clear the
plaintiff will win. They have
better things to do with their time.
Mike
Perry, Inkling,
Seattle [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
While it is absolutely uncertain as to what if anything of unix SCO does
"own"-- Even if they some how manage to prevail in this matter--they
have still shown no IP in linux that is unencumbered. That is, has been shown to
not come from an earlier released/publicly available source. What they have
shown is code that the linux community stepped forward to show that it could not
be SCO IP, and then some ABI files, which are not IP by any stretch of
interpretation or imagination.
It would be nice for them to lose on this, as it would tie up a lot of the loose
ends, but in the end, none of their cases is about their IP in linux. As some
one else noted, although they keep saying it in press releases and interviews,
but the lawsuits and the contracts do not give them any leverage to ask for
licenses from linux users. So winning these things in no way should induce any
linux user to pay for something that they have no claim to. They do not own
linux period. The only license relationship they have with linux is the GPL,
which they are in violation of. If any one should pay for linix, it is SCO. They
should pay every linux contributor for incorporating linux into their
proprietary product.
What is clearer than ever, is that Mr. McBride will lie to suit his owwn needs.
The whole I know what happened at Novell is pure garbage. And even more obtuse
is the claim that Novell agrees with them--then why is there a slander of title
suit, clearly Novell does not agree, former executives don't count here, even if
it is a matter of determining intent. How many musicians have been burned by
contracts with a label that clearly was not their intent.
The next organization that considers hiring Mr. McBride (becasue SCO will not be
around, or if it is, Mr. McBride will not, as his strategy to monetize unix IP
will fail) will do well to remember his performance here. And we all will take
note of any corporation that does hire him--as they must be doing so to have him
perform some nefarious duty. No, we do not hate him as he thinks, we despise him
for being the underhanded decieving manipulative person that he reveals in every
interview. Withholding or unwilling to acknowledge facts, distorting the truth,
mischaracterizing the position of companies that they are currently in
litigation with. We are disgusted by his unethical, unprofessional conduct, who
has repeatedly shown that they will say whatever for a buck.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
I wish I could be a fly on the wall at BayStar. They told Darl to stop spouting
off. They suggested a change of management. Now they hold even more ownership
and control in SCO. If he had any sense he's stay out of the headlines for a
while... Perhaps he doesn't.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
Someone pointed out, using a CNN interview as source, SCO didn't got a reaction
on the UNIX (for AIX) license termination.
I'm interested in reading everything SCO or one of its representees has claimed
which is PROVEN (with sources) to be either contradictive or false. I see so
many people here claiming that Darl McBride & SCO are liars. I'm willing to
believe that, and i've seen contradictions, statements without back-up, and
lies. However only my conclusion or some vague memory is not an argument.
I think it strengtens our case in discussions and the media since it makes SCO
looks less creditable in anything they say in the future.
Unfortunately i don't have the time for this. Is anyone else interested in
researching this? I think you'd even be able to sell this to some Linux magazine
as an article to compensate your hard work & energy invested, but that's
your decision ofcourse.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dracoverdi on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
I know we're not supposed to respond to trolls in the comments, but what about
when they're in public and off the net? It seems to me that when Darl says
something like "But those who respect intellectual property rights don't
hate me." or many of his other comments, he's trolling for quotes from the
free software people he considers his "enemies".
It makes you wonder though. That statement leaves room for him to hate himself.
---
Pizza is an acceptable breakfast.
Just think of it as a large pepperoni danish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|