decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT

I should probably preface my remarks by explaining that by "blow by blow" I don't mean anything physical, and this is not a threat against Rob Enderle. He seems a bit on edge lately, and I surely don't wish to send him over the top, while he's brooding about Groklaw. Because he went on and on about carrying guns in his keynote speech at SCOForum last week, I expect keeping him calm is the prudent course. At least, that is what my friends are telling me. The word blow can mean many things. The wind can blow, for example, or think blow as in blowhard. Here I use blow by blow to mean step by step.

Mr. Enderle's keynote continues to amaze and revolt. Joe Barr has answered him on Newsforge, most powerfully, and he offers him some free advice -- free as in beer -- in an article, "Some advice for SCO/Microsoft ally Rob Enderle".

Here is a small sample:

"There isn't any mistaking your animosity toward Groklaw; it is as obvious as the morning sun. If ever there was a dark kingdom that preferred darkness to light, FUD to truth, and confusion to clarity, it is Microsoft and its legion of shills. Your dislike for Groklaw is easy to understand: Its community is dedicated to challenging all the FUD it can find. . . .

"In closing, Rob, I would like to offer some advice: If you truly wish to stop being called a Microsoft shill, or a SCO shill, learn something about free software and the people who develop it. Tell both sides, honestly, without your very obvious -- and now admitted -- bias for the monopoly and your disdain for truly free software, and you'll find people in both camps listening approvingly."

Mr. Barr was nice enough to ask me to respond to and correct some of Mr. Enderle's misinformation about Groklaw, and you can read what I said there. It could be summed up like this: Mr. Enderle should stick to the truth when attacking Groklaw.

Mr. Enderle, in the meantime, has written a followup article, unbelievably titled "Free As In Freedom -- a Keynote Considered" although he does not apologize to Groklaw for saying untrue things about it. Instead he says that he -- lover of freedom that he is -- got upset because people in the audience at SCOForum were telling Groklaw what was going on.

Think free as in speech, Mr. Enderle.

I've heard that when you give a talk, you actually give three: the one you prepared, the one you gave, and the one you wish you had given. Here, Mr. Enderle instead gives us the one he wants us to think he gave:

"In the end, my keynote at the SCO forum focused more on preserving the freedoms we enjoy by protecting the freedoms of others, making informed decisions and acting against those that improperly use the threat of force to further their own agendas."

Is that what you got out of the speech? What threat of force is he alluding to? Groklaw is about the law. I love law, and I try to share that love with the world. You don't choose to become a paralegal unless you respect the law. And now, as a journalist, I write about it. There is no disrespect for law on Groklaw.

He writes that he does, too, know the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer. It's just that in his keynote, he didn't "mention open-source software very much at all". So, he wants us to believe he wasn't confused. He meant to give a keynote address at SCOForum, a company which is attacking open source, all about freeware? No, no, he was talking about enterprise software and how it isn't really free, and you're an idiot if you don't realize it. I do believe he is talking about free as in beer again.

Groklaw, he says, had spies in the audience to tell us what was going on and they were mischaracterizing what was going on.

Ah. The chickens have come home to roost. The FOSS community has been mischaracterized in the press, for years, including in his speech, actually, and they don't like it either, although they certainly have gotten accustomed to it. Now the shoe is pinching on the other foot, eh? I have yet to see a mischaracterization, but Enderle suggests you compare what was reported on Groklaw with what turned up in his keynote:

". . . [T]he keynote is being so widely misquoted this week. Strangely enough, this phenomenon introduces one final point: Many of you are being manipulated by others. What you have read on sites like Groklaw about this keynote, compared to what I actually said, should prove that point enough so you start asking critical questions."

So he says he was upset when giving his speech by Groklaw spies being there. And he wants us to compare his speech with what we reported. By all means, please do read what Groklaw reported. Here is our report on the first day of SCOForum and here is the report from the second day, posted August 4 at 7:25 AM EDT. The date is important, because this second story was posted *after* Enderle's speech, not before it, and in fact it reports on the speech, but only by providing a link to a report that was posted on Yahoo. The report was not to Groklaw. Mr. Enderle gave his speech on August 3rd, as you can see from the transcript SCO has on its web site, the day before this article. So if Mr. Enderle was upset at the time he gave his speech, it couldn't have been because of eyewitnesses providing reports to Groklaw, as he now claims. My report on the first day included no such reports. And here is my article about his speech, after I read the transcript.

I present all this so as to encourage you to ask critical questions, as he suggests we all should. And something else I noticed. The transcript of his speech now online (Update: it had disappeared, but is now again available on Internet Archive, after SCO in 2010 sold the domain name and lost the ability to control it by robots.txt) is called "Free Software and the Idiots who Buy It", but the Yahoo poster said the title was, "Free Software and the Fools Who Use It", which title he said he took from the program. Does anyone out there have a program so they could check? It seems to me SCO ought to provide audio of the speech, not just a transcript, because otherwise -- no offense -- we can't be sure just what he really said there. In the speech, he does mention that he rewrote the speech at the last minute, so that could explain the titles being different.

Groklaw didn't send anyone to SCOForum, by the way. I don't have to send anyone anywhere. Folks just show initiative and volunteer. I don't want to make Mr. Enderle more paranoid or anything, but GNU/Linux users are everywhere. Folks just contribute as they wish and as they can. It's the power of the open source method.

I think you'll enjoy Neil Wehneman's line-by-line analysis of Mr. Enderle's speech. Neil is a future law student. I enjoyed it a lot. But the thrilling part was that Neil tells me that he decided to go to law school in part because of Groklaw. I just thought I'd mention that, since Enderle said Groklaw's readers are wasting their lives here. Neil's goal is to work in the field of IP law.

Why All the Attacks on Groklaw?

So, bottom line: why all the attacks on Groklaw all of a sudden? And why no Enderle apology? He didn't even apologize for his foul language. I will give you my theory. I noticed that Darl McBride in his speech at SCOForum made some predictions, after he took a jab at Groklaw too. He said he commended "open blogs" and sites like Slashdot, where everyone is free to say whatever they wish. He falsely claimed that any time anything positive is left as a comment on Groklaw, I remove it. Actually, I have no recollection of ever seeing a positive comment about SCO here on Groklaw and I certainly haven't removed any as a result. Really. And he predicted that "open blogs" like Slashdot will start to tell SCO's side of the story, and then the media will get to understand what is really going on.

I interpret this to mean that SCO is arranging an astroturf campaign. How else could he predict future behavior on Slashdot? I also understand that they must have left comments on Groklaw that got deleted by moderators. I can't recall that I have ever seen any comments deleted that were positive toward SCO. I do delete bad language and obvious trolls.

They call it astroturf because it's phony, as in phony grass. Here is Wikipedia's definition of astroturf:

"In American politics, the term 'astroturfing' is used to describe formal public relations projects which deliberately give the impression that they are spontaneous and populist reactions. The term is a play on the description of truly spontaneous or 'grassroots' efforts and the distinction between real grass and AstroTurf - the fake grass used in some indoor American football stadiums.

"A grassroots' action or campaign is one that is started spontaneously and is largely sustained by private persons, not politicians, corporations or public relations firms. A 'grassroots' campaign is perceived to come from the popular feelings of some mass of people and to not be a creation of the powerful.

"'Astroturfing', by contrast, is a campaign crafted by politicians or other professionals but carefully designed to appear that it is the result of popular feeling rather than manipulation. The astroturfing campaign attempts to gain legitimacy by appearing to spring forth spontaneously from 'the people'. If the campaign is well executed, the planners hope that the public at large will believe that 'all those independent viewpoints could not have been faked.' . . .

"One technique of an astroturfing campaign is to induce a number of its supporters to write email, letters to the editor, blog posts, crossposts and trackbacks, in support of the campaign's goals. The campaign instructs the supporters on what to say, how to say it, and where to send it, and above all, to make it appear that their indignation, appreciation, joy, or hate is entirely spontaneous and independent – and thus 'real' – and not at all the product of an orchestrated campaign. . . .

"A similar manipulation of public opinion was used in the Soviet Union when political decisions were preceded by massive campaigns of orchestrated 'letters from workers' (pisma trudyashcihsya) which were quoted and published in newspapers and radio."

Ah, yes. The corporate version of free speech. So, I suggest that if and when you read nonsense about Groklaw ("I used to love Groklaw, but now PJ [fill in the blank]"), just consider the likely source. Of course, an astroturf campaign depends upon a non-moderated site, which explains McBride's sudden fondness for Slashdot.

I do promise them one thing. I'll report on any SCO astroturf campaigns I see, as I now believe McBride's prediction indicates they will happen. This is why Enderle really can't say he's sorry, I expect. If the campaign is set to go forward, and this speech marked the kick-off, an apology would get in the way.

Update: Here's a snapshot of the program from the event, which says Fools, not Idiots. On the other hand, the SCO partner CD used "Free Software and the Idiots who Buy It". But it was titled like this:

SCO Keynote

Rob Enderle

Project: "This is the Keynote Speech given by Rob Enderle at SCO Forum August 3, 2005

Free Software and the Idiots who Buy It

It's got an Enderle logo at the top, so I'd surmise the program is from SCO, given out at SCOforum; the speech is from Enderle, after the event.

Update, March 2011: The article is no longer available online or via Wayback, so here it is, for historians:


Some advice for SCO/Microsoft ally Rob Enderle
By Joe Barr on August 12, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Dear Rob Enderle,

I want to thank you, a supposedly independent IT analyst, for the keynote speech you gave recently at the SCO Forum. It certainly explains a lot of things about where you are coming from: your bias toward the Microsoft and SCO alliance, for one thing; your bias against Linux and free software for another. No longer do any of us -- at Groklaw, NewsForge, or anywhere else -- need to puzzle over your motivations. You've made them extraordinarily clear.

Oh, sure. I do have a couple of things to quibble about -- and an observation or two to make -- but I commend you sincerely for opening up your heart-of-hearts and letting the world get a peek inside.

My major complaint about your speech is that the level of understanding of free software demonstrated in your talk approximates that which Baud has given an animal cracker. To say "You don't get it" in this case is like saying the known universe is a big place. You don't begin to grok free software, Linux, or the communities involved -- especially Groklaw.

A secondary observation: You must have a blackbelt in the art of FUD. No, please. Don't be modest. Your use of the rarely employed kata -- called "the rodent of pre-emptive denial" by its practitioners -- reveals great skill. After learning of your history with IBM, Gates, and Ballmer, though, I guess your expertise in this area shouldn't really come as a surprise.

After all, it was IBM who invented FUD. A classic example being the sales call made by IBM on a customer considering another vendor. One of the blue suits, sometime during the visit, would remark "I certainly hope the talk about their (the competitor's) financial difficulties is not true." If the customer asked for more details, the salesman could simply apologize for his "slip of the tongue" and change the topic. But whether the customer asked about it or not, a seed of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about the possible consequences of doing business with the competitor had been sown.

PJ a marketing exec?
In his speech, Enderle said of Groklaw: "The site is supported by a marketing executive whose future is tied to the future of Linux and has strong political skills." I asked Pamela Jones (PJ to Groklaw regulars) if this were true. She replied:

I'm not a marketing exec. He makes these things up, I guess. I also, as you know, do not work for or with IBM. I've stated so publicly, including in a letter to the editor for ZDNet, when they asked me to do so the last time this came up.

A simple Google search would have cleared up this matter, had he done one, so I see no excuse for him to say reckless, inaccurate things. I don't understand why anyone would say untrue things about someone. It's terribly wrong, in my view, and I feel he should apologize.

I'm just me. Groklaw is me. Me plus a large community that cares. Groklaw just tipped the 7,000 member mark, and it is still growing. That's all there is to it. I gather he imagines Groklaw is too good to be by little ole me, a nobody. Surely IBM must be behind it. But they aren't. Groklaw is a voice from the community, and if we are so effective that SCO and their gang feel they must attack Groklaw, I'm glad. But they should stick to the truth.

Of course, a girl could get positively tuckered out trying to teach the SCO group manners.

Microsoft took FUD to a whole 'nother level. Instead of using softly whispered asides during sales calls, they hired shills to blare the FUD over loudspeakers: Journalists, analysts, and astroturfing surfers are all employed to that end. The list of victims of such FUD attacks is too long to relate here. Let's just say that Novell received a rather large settlement recently for the damage done to DrDOS by Microsoft's FUD.

I still remember when -- about 1994, if I recall correctly -- industry analyst Phil Payne observed on Will Zachmann's legendary Canopus Forum on CompuServe that Microsoft was invariably doing exactly what it accused the competition of doing. That's another rare form of FUD you seem to have learned at the master's knee, grasshopper: Your speech is overly full of it.

For example, you said:

I understand the need for those that are deeply political or religious to misrepresent their opponents so that their own positions appear well founded. I also believe the practice to be stupid, primarily because eventually the truth does come out, but I still understand it.

Then you demonstrate how deeply you understand by saying of Linux users:

There are people who get up every day, work a 9 to 5 and go home to their families trading their lives for varying degrees of cash. In my view, though clearly not theirs, they are selling their lives very cheaply. These are wage slaves and the difference between people like that and a zombie is generally lost on me. Do you realize that many, I'm not saying all or even most, of the Linux supporters are like this, they have never coded anything in their lives, have never even played a video game, in fact the only reason they are supporting Linux is because it is a cause and their life lacks one. That is an incredibly sad group of folks, and I wonder what their reaction will be when they finally understand they are supporting software and not the second coming.

Thus proving Payne's observation not only to be correct, but still valid after all these years.

I'm curious, Rob, whether your apparent confusion about free software is real or feigned. It could very well be FUD of the third kind: that which plays on misconceptions that are already "out there." Certainly an analyst of your stature -- coming from an industry renowned for borrowing a customer's watch in order to tell him what time it is -- should have stumbled over a clue by now. That you haven't is something of a mystery.

You say there are three types of free software, then you go on to describe two types of proprietary software -- adware and time-limited trial versions -- with one false representation of Linux. In your own words:

With software there are several kinds of "free." There are free products that come with ads and increasingly with Spyware, there are "free trials" which time out at unfortunate periods of time (time bombs), and there are free enterprise products that cost 1,000s of dollars. Guess which one Linux is?

Are you really that ill-informed about the most powerful dynamic in IT today, Rob? Your statements show you know nothing about the subject of your attacks, the recipient of your bias, the villain of your tale? Or is that simply a reflection of how poorly informed you think the people who listen to you and trust your judgement are? It's hard to say for sure which is the case. My call on it could go either way.

There isn't any mistaking your animosity toward Groklaw; it is as obvious as the morning sun. If ever there was a dark kingdom that preferred darkness to light, FUD to truth, and confusion to clarity, it is Microsoft and its legion of shills. Your dislike for Groklaw is easy to understand: Its community is dedicated to challenging all the FUD it can find.

But you're certainly right about fanaticism going too far at times. I've experienced it myself, coming from Windows users when I skewered the myth of Windows being an easier, faster, better install than Linux. You see, Rob, although you wave your hands and sing hosanna in admiration of the depth of your understanding of human nature, you fail to understand that a certain percentage of every user group -- regardless of their software preference -- fits that mold. Unless, of course, you are simply being dishonest in your attribution of those traits to the free software world.

In closing, Rob, I would like to offer some advice: If you truly wish to stop being called a Microsoft shill, or a SCO shill, learn something about free software and the people who develop it. Tell both sides, honestly, without your very obvious -- and now admitted -- bias for the monopoly and your disdain for truly free software, and you'll find people in both camps listening approvingly.

Joe Barr


An Enderle Blow by Blow | 757 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Trolls here please....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:00 PM EDT we can have a good laugh before reading the serious, sensible post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:00 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:02 PM EDT
And to start it off, it looks like SCOX is still creeping downwards.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT
i just posted to yahoo board about thinking about divide or conquor?
for people to concentrate on the topic at hand
we all come from different cultures and social backgrounds and whether you
fully agree with one person or another isnt the whole point
if they can raise one tiny issue it helps dividde the field
think about it.all of this means we are all making a difference and building a
strength that will have to pay money to fight
because they sure wont have volunteers doing it for free

br3n #groklaw
Mike "Moogy" Tuxford, 1951-2004. Rest in peace.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: bubba on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Wow that all helps put it in perspective.

The law is reason, free from passion.

My opinion is passion, free from reason.
-Enderle, with help from Wehneman.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Astroturf Campaign
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:16 PM EDT
As many who read this have likely already noted, it would appear that the
"astroturf campaign" has already been present on the Yahoo! SCOX
board. A number of new handles have popped up, arguing against Groklaw. Most
of them being remarkably cordial. Their newness, though, is what is most
notable. I am unaware of any of the "long standing" contributors
suddenly going sour towards Groklaw.

I can only speak for myself, but I greatly appreciate what Groklaw has done and
is doing. Their just niffed that someone isn't letting them run roughshod over
a "disorganized band of geeks".

PJ, you are appreciated, and your work is superb. Never let'am get you down.

-- dread

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pro-SCO comments?
Authored by: Nick on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT
I honestly cannot recall any truly pro-SCO comments on Groklaw either. I have
seen Devil's advocate type of posts where the writer posits the best possible
explanation for some of SCO's actions, but it's always been clear the writer
didn't really think that was the case at hand. Frankly, once you read the court
transcripts, it's so clear that SCO has no good motive it's really hard to find
something nice to say about them. Their own words condemn them thoroughly. I
suppose someone could write pro-SCO words out of ignorance and inexperience.

But I have seen anti-Groklaw comments, and I suppose Darl could be thinking in a
black-and-white way that anti-Groklaw automatically means pro-SCO. Yes, some
anti-Groklaw comments get deleted. Usually when there is bad language, or
threats. Or when it's such an old and obvious troll subject that it's pointless
to keep it around when it's been covered time and time and time again. Even
here, lots of times those posts do NOT get deleted, and I always have to laugh
when I see someone say that "all anti-Groklaw posts get deleted" when
it is so visibly obvious not to be the case. I myself have answered several
anti-Groklaw posts that turned into long threads that were not deleted.

Why would someone make an anti-Groklaw comment? I can think of several

1. They don't know the case that well yet and misunderstand something said by
the Groklaw regulars in shorthand form, because they are very well used to the
issues by now.

2. They just don't agree, and think FOSS is bad, so they take it out on

3. They are mad at someone here, or PJ, because they got called out for bad
behavior, or they did not get an article of theirs published, or they did not
get viewed as the demi-god they think they are. So now they storm off and bad
mouth the place. Happens in every online community throughout the history of

4. They are shills. Hey, we know such people exist, and naturally they will try
to make their views heard on Groklaw.

But what Darl says is just not true. You can express any viewpoint you want
here and it won't get deleted if you express yourself in a calm, reasonable
manner and resort to facts and logic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please don't.
Authored by: Sgt_Jake on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT
Listen up folks - Rob Enderle is what's known as a 'quote mill'. He gives interesting comments to other reporters that spice up their articles. He can legitimately claim to be 'the most influential' analyst because he lights firestorms and a lot of people go off.

If you can't stop yourself, if you have to stop look at the train wrecks he continues to publish, look for the following pattern before you respond to him directly or in any talkback section;

First, talk about the good things in life - freedom, money, family, friends, fighting the good fight, nobility, and so on. You'll quickly get the sense that Rob is an average Joe that believes in America and the American dream. Oh, and TRUTH. That's Rob in a nutshell. What a guy.

Then, we'll talk about how 'some' people maybe don't feel the same things are important. 'Some' people, because they've been duped, because they're young, stupid, screwy ideals, for whatever reason, 'some' people just don't want to live in that kind of world. He's not saying _who_ those people are, just that they're out there. We all know he means you, but he's happy to wait for you to claim it ISN'T you and that he's got it all backwards before winking with a smirk at the crowd. Oh yeah... it's you.

We will then discuss how 'free' isn't 'free', what's wrong with OSS and how it damages freedom, money, the fabric of our economy and so on. Again, you'll protest and... wink-wink nudge-nudge look at the 'some' people getting all defensive again. *Keep in mind during these little excursions that Rob knows that we think he's got it all wrong. He's known for years. He's heard every rational and well reasoned explanation of what he got wrong and why, and we've shown him proof upon proof ("LOOK! Line 5 paragraph 2 of the GPL!"), but he just doesn't buy it. He thinks he's right and we're all wrong. All of us. The people who write it, use it, sell it, love it - even those of us who make a living off it - we're all wrong. You WILL NEVER see him discuss this in his articles, not because we can prove he's wrong or that he's afraid of us (I believe he looks forward to it), but because he does NOT BELIEVE IT! End of story, go away.

Next we'll talk about abusive people. Despots. Criminals. Ner-do-wells. These people are a lot worse than 'some' people, but typically they go hand in hand. They'll threaten you, try to scare you, they're abusive... "Is it worth the risk?" he'll ask. (Notice that he won't specifically say it's us) "It's not something anyone should have to worry about!" he'll reasonably postulate. And then, when you and I protest the inferred accusation... wink-wink, nudge-nudge. *Keep in mind here that he's careful about this accusation - it's not everywhere, he'll say, but it's there. And then he'll spend an inordinate amount of time IN EVERY PIECE on this risk, even if it has nothing to do with the piece. And when you get irritated by it, he'll point out how unreasonable we all are - after all, the article was clearly about something else entirely! Suckers.

People have accused Rob of thousands of motivations for his work over the past few years, just as he recently accused Pamela of hers. What a pointless waste of time - for everyone. Rob, for all our speculation, is just a guy with a lot of opinions. Just like Pamela (...but as a woman, and shows us the source of her opinions so we can form our own...). If the record must be set straight, let Pamela do it. She's far better at it and has a much better chance of making Rob look like an ass - being the source of his speculation and all. Equally - give Rob a chance to make you look like an ass by questioning his motivations directly.

Now - I have no doubt that at some point, someone claiming OSS ties threatened him physically - and that struck the very heart of his fear that he talks about. From that point on the OSS camp has been, to him, the man with the gun. In his eyes, he's doing the noble thing and standing up to us. It DOESN'T MATTER that he's poking us with a sharp stick with every article - we rise to it! EVERY TIME! By doing so, we not only feed (confirm) his fear and strengthen his resolve, but we provide him with a target and build his resume. Every time he's 'featured' on the Linux-show, cnet, discussed on Groklaw or quoted by CNN his credentials get longer ("I've been featured on!"), and the longer his credentials are the more likely others will use him as a source. We can stop it, but only by leaving him alone.

So please, everyone - LEAVE ROB ALONE. Not by saving his life, his name, his family and friends, or the world itself could we ever make him believe that there is anything noble or good that comes from the free-software community. To him, we will always be the man with the gun, because his first dip into our pool ended with him being tossed for bad behavior. The correct response to this irrationality is silence. Deafening silence. The next time somebody says 'Enderle...' just smile and say "yeah..." and let it go. No response necessary - just like he does to us when we try to call him out on the facts.

The only real influence he has with anyone where Linux is concerned is what WE - THE COMMUNITY - give him. Stop giving him your attention. It's just not... worth it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pamela, you should be proud...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT
I would take all of Darl and Rob's irration with this site as a positive sign
that Groklaw has an impact. They certainly have a right and a reson to be
irratated, Groklaw usually quickly dissects and dismantles the SCO claims to
what they really are, separating the facts from the fiction of SCO's story. If I
were Darl that would really irk me.

So I say let them keep complaining and belittling Groklaw. The more they
complain publicly about the site the more people come to look at what's being
said. Anyone with half a brain can take a look at the mountain of documentation
available on this site and see it for what it is, a large compilation of facts
found nowhere else.

Keep up the good work PJ!


[ Reply to This | # ]

A where's Waldo contest for Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
So where are these supposedly positive comments on here?
It's harder than trying to find Waldo in one of those books.
I've never seen any (and I've been here since the beginning).

Can anyone find a non-troll, non-abusive, non-sarcastic, non-cynical post in
support of SCO?

I doubt it...

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT
<i>First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win.</i> - Mahatma Ghandi

You are on the right track.

The more they spin, the dizzier they get.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slashdot unmoderated?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:42 PM EDT
On the second to last paragraph, PJ writes: Of course, an astroturf campaign depends upon a non-moderated site, which explains McBride's sudden fondness for Slashdot.

I can disagree to that statement, being a Slashdot member. Although Slashdot is not actively moderated by a chief admin, Slashdotters themselves *can* moderate other posters comments. I believe this is a fine example of democracy at work. I´ve used Slashdot´s metamoderation tool to help in the moderation process, which I find truly remarkable.

I´d be surprised if astroturfing would work on /. considering the critical opinion geeks at that site have been famous for.

I think McBride & co. better stick to msn blogs or the usual lies-for-hire PR shops they´ve been used to if they want to accomplish anything at all.


[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Ahem, now that I've regained my thoughts from a really good bout
of laughing. Lets see if I understand Enderle correctly.

Groklaw bad, Slashdot good. Do I got that right?

While Slashdot posts a lot of really interesting articles, no one (at
least in my mind) can possibly think Slashdot comments are more
logical, straight to the truth, clear of foul language, etc than
Groklaw. I have read many, many over the top posts at Slashdot
and cannot think of any I have seen here.

You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Enderle and SCO dislike Groklaw
Authored by: mk270 on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT

A comment on the Yahoo SCOX board made it clear to me. SCO, and particularly Enderle, do not dislike Groklaw because PJ and the posters are critical of their position or because a minority oversteps some line - they'd be much more likely to dislike Slashdot if those were the reasons.

What scares them is that they can't bluff with Groklaw watching them. Every little puff of Enderle's CV, every contradiction or omission in SCO's statements, every misrepresentation and attempt to spin is picked up on and disproven with evidence. It is not what Groklaw says, but the way Groklaw goes about saying it: rigorously and remorselessly. That's what they dislike, as it deprives them of useful diversionary PR tactics which they are used to and could once rely upon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT
Rob the Shill has every right to feel threatened since we are putting SCOG's
lights out, and he will be collateral damage - Whether Rob the Shill will be
able to make a living after all is said and done is none of our concern. Rob
complains that we ae playing for keeps, that we are out to destroy people's
livelihoods, but then any disagreement that we have with people who happen to be
liars, crooks and extortionists has to be more than academic and more than just
disagreement - try visceral. Rob the Shill got us wrong when he said we do
propaganda: we do analysis, and he was smart enough to be afraid, he should be
very worried about how thoroughly we could deconstruct that keynote speech of

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-OSRM is not pro-SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT

You still don't understand that people who oppose software liability
insurance don't necessarily support SCO. You really need to work on
that, no matter how the sleazy SCO trolls try to co-opt that topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Line by Line" Author Here
Authored by: Neil Wehneman on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:56 PM EDT
This is Neil Wehneman, the author of the line-by-line analysis.

I have a few things to throw out.

First, I am NOT YET a law student. I don't blame PJ in the least for coming to that conclusion, as my brief emails with her could have been interpreted that way. I am a senior in Information Systems at Ohio State, and will start law school in twelve months.

Second, this article (like all my writing) is Creative Commons (NonComm-Attrib), so feel free to redistribute, modify, etc. within that license.

Third, although complete, I don't have a problem revising it. Toss your comments directly to me at if you think there are sections that could be tightened.

- Neil Wehneman

IANAL. But I hope to be one in a few years, focusing on copyrights, patents, and the intersection of technology and law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder if my speculation is correct...
Authored by: cfitch on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT
Over on the "Setback for MS in EU Antitrust Appeal" story, I posted the following comment:

Speaking of Enderle...
Authored by: cfitch on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT
Enderle has a response to all those who criticize his speech up on LinuxInsider ("big surprise" that it appears on LinuxInsider).

I have not read it, and I refuse to, but something comes to mind about his keynote speech and some recent changes in SCO's strategy. One of Baystar's criticisms of SCO's legal strategy was how Mr. McBride engaged in a war of words with Linux supporters instead of running the IP business.

I wonder if SCO has decided to change their legal stategy. It might now be something like this:
1) Act as if the "sue everyone" practice is now no longer a priority
2) Quietly prepare for more cases
3) Keep the media coverage quiet
4) Enlist or allow people like Enderle to engage in the war of words with Linux supporters as a method of deflecting attention to SCO's actions

It might be completely off base, but then again, maybe not.

Here's a link to Enderle's response: Fr ee as in Freedom: A Keynote Considered

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Given PJ's comments about a potential upcoming astroturf campaign, the SCO strategy might look like this:

  1. Act as if the "sue everyone" practice is now no longer a priority
  2. Quietly prepare for more cases
  3. Handle the media coverage differently

Point 3 would consist of a number of items:
  • Limit statements to the media to carefully controlled and brief releases. Think of an inverse of McBride's previous media blitz
  • Enlist sympathetic/for-hire third party individuals and organizations to fight the "war of words" with Linux supporters
  • Start a polite but vicious astroturf campaign aimed at groups and individuals critical of SCO. Groklaw would be a prime target.

Now why would SCO do this? Well, I would speculate that, in reality, they *still* want to attack Linux through legal means. A motivating point might be to appease Baystar, or attract more investors, or appease Microsoft. After all, Baystar wanted SCO to drop Unix and move to a pure-IP/litigation setup. SCO might be moving to do that, but in a more intelligent manner, ie. pretend as if they are dropping the legal avenue, act as if they returned to the Unix business, but really continue to push their anit-Linux legal agenda in a quiet and calculated manner.

It's the only thing that makes sense as far as I'm concerned.
PJ or anyone else... thoughts on this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl & Slashdot?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT
"I noticed that Darl McBride in his speech at SCOForum made some
predictions, after he took a jab at Groklaw too. He said he commended "open
blogs" and sites like Slashdot, where everyone is free to say whatever they

I find this to be interesting. Does he remember how he went on and on about
someone on Slashdot allegedly posting his phone number, and how upset he was?
And now, just a little while later, he's commending them for the freedom of
saying whatever they wish? It doesn't add up.

Without having all of the information (which none of us have), going only by
what we hear from the courts, I honestly don't see how anyone can be supporting
SCO at this point. Especially considering the fact that, after two court orders
demanding them to do so, SCO has still not shown any proof of infringing code
(as an aside, I often wonder what it takes for a judge to throw a case out when
the plaintiff absolutely refuses to show any proof of wrongdoing, something
which I always thought was required when filing a lawsuit). From what I have
seen, SCO has shown no reason for support. So unless they're planning on
flooding the sites with false information, or unless they have some real proof
to reveal, I don't see why people on any site, much less Slashdot, would
suddenly start supporting them.

Now a brief question on the Enderle speech. I did read the speech, though it
was difficult because I was getting very frustrated reading the outright lies
(to me, he was describing SCO, not the FOSS community). But I digress. My
question is this: He said that when he contacted SCO to look at their proof,
there were many attempts to block his way. What did he mean by this? He didn't
elaborate, and I can't honestly tell what he meant. From his wording, I can't
even tell from which side he meant the attempts came from (whether SCO didn't
want him to see it, or whether he thinks the FOSS community tried to stop him
from seeing it). My opinion is that if you're going to make these claims, you
should back them up with at least some sort of information. Does anyone know
what he meant by that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
I don't want to make Mr. Enderle more paranoid or anything, but GNU/Linux users are everywhere. Folks just contribute as they wish and as they can. It's the power of the open source method.

Heh. You are brilliant Pamela. The truth really hurts when told so nicely :)


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Paranoia! - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT
    • Right - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT
  • Paranoia! - Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 12:09 AM EDT
Enderle quotes
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
"I watched the tapes of the Nuremburg experiments that showcased how people
put in positions of authority could be ordered to torture and kill other people
and that the majority of those tested in the study failed the
"humanity" test. Groups of people can do really bad things and not
failing the humanity test became a personal goal.

Stop for a moment and take the macro view, how does the behavior of the Linux
attack force that has been focused on SCO and Microsoft really differ from other
hate groups. If I even named these groups I would lose you so I won't, but isn't
the behavior similar?"

"I traveled armed for 4 years under constant threat of death"

" I have a serious problem with people who are abusive, particularly those
who use any excuse to cross the line into physical, emotional or verbal abuse.
In my view this is uncalled for and the people who utilize this practice, this
is a direct quote for Groklaw, aren't worth the air they breathe."

"after 911, Columbine, the east coast sniper, the people who have gone to
work, their law offices, government offices, and killed others we would have all
lost our tolerance for those that resort to physical threats. But while I'm sure
that people would see that threatening a person's spouse or children is bad,
I'm surprised more don't see that threatening their careers and reputations
simply because you disagree with them to be equally so."

" and especially IBM, can make and to what extreme lengths executives will
go to cover them up. You just have to look at Enron, WorldCom and Martha Stewart
to get a sense of how power unchecked can corrupt."

"I hear Free I want to look at the small print. I don't understand how
people can go on "Free" Vacations which have at their core an
incredibly painful sales process that locks you into a "timeshare" you
could have bought for a fraction of the price on the web. Isn't a time share
always "used"?"

"Why in the world would a programmer trying to make ends meet want to drive
an initiative that could only make him, or her, less valuable over time? Linux
folks are not only not paid more than their UNIX counterparts, with the massive
move to off-shoring, the average wage is dropping like a rock globally and the
jobs are moving to places where that wage is acceptable."

[ Reply to This | # ]

speaking of astroturf...
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:34 PM EDT

Speaking of 'astroturf' campaigns, does anyone else remeber when Microsoft launched an astroturf campaign against the government during the US anti-trust trials?

Microsoft got caught because some of the letters from 'concerned citizens' were from citizens who were dead!

Oh yeah, the campaign was centered in Utah. It seems that Utah is quickly becoming the new center for all thing stupid, incompetent and absurd here in the US of A. Or at least folks like the SCO Group and others are trying very hard to create that impression.

Can all of the normal Utahns out there please take a few moments to slap some sense into any of your friends and neighbors that are not quite tuned in to reality? Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:40 PM EDT
Dear P.J.

At the risk of being considered a troll:

Let us begin by accepting a premise, that appears to be a point of Mr. Enderle
and SCO and Microsoft. IE this individual and these companies wish to make a
product and sell it to customers. They wish to sell a product at a price enough
higher than the cost of production that they make a profit, can pay dividends on
their stock and earn their investors a return on investment competative with
other investment opportunities.

That in and of itself is an admirable goal, that is consistent with the free
enterprise system that is a bedrock of this great country's economy.

There is another viewpoint that ideas are not property, that an individual
can not own an idea. Once an idea has been expressed it is and should be freely
available to anyone. This freedom of expression is one protected in the
constitution of this great country.

One day someone had the bright idea that anyone should be able to own a
computer. Prior to that point in time, the issue of who owned a program was of
small issue to the common man. It made little difference who owned a program
because the common man had no way of taking advantage of ownership or freedom of
expression as expressed as a computer program.

The current conflicts such as Endele vs Groklaw or SCO vs Linux are simply
symptoms of the inevitable clash where ideas overflow into the real world.
While each side has ardent passioned supporters of their position and vilify the
opponent, neither is inherently wrong in and of itself. It is merely there is
more to existence than the specific point being argued.

It is with this guidline in mind that I read the postings and form my
opinions on the subject.

I will refrain from stating my preference at this point, lest this post be no
longer considered as balanced as I can make it.

An Avid Reader

[ Reply to This | # ]

Email duel
Authored by: roman_mir on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT
I am going to post my emails to Rob Enderle here and his replies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle, the New Microsoft Information Minister
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:44 PM EDT
"Many of you are being manipulated by others."

Wow, doesn't that sound familiar?

Reminds me of another person ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT
I'm still a believer in the Mae West quote: "Say what you want about me,
just spell my name right."

And, to that effect, my reply to Bob Enderle, and also to SCO who gave him a
platform on their stage for their Keynote address, is simple: "Thanks for
spelling Groklaw's name right."

I can't see this detracting a single person from Groklaw as a result of this.
But I can certainly imagine a lot of new readers at Groklaw. It's also a
validation that Groklaw has been effective.

Just once. Just ONCE, I'd like one of them to argue based on facts and logic. It
would be interesting, and we could have a real discussion. That's far more
exciting than disassembling FUD. I want them to PROVE our beliefs wrong, in the
spirit of the dialectic, to progress knowledge and understanding further. And to
better understand the state of software, the GPL, and Linux. Alas, we aren't so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something nice about SCO to censor
Authored by: anesq on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT
Here you go, PJ, something nice about SCO to censor:

The original suit filed by SCO against IBM was the right thing for them to do.
Subsequently, they let things get out of hand, and caught litigation fever, but
based on what they knew at the time, SCO was correct in filing suit against IBM.
Their cause of action had logic to it.

If SCO owned all derivative works based on Sys V (debatable, but not unsupported
by the evidence at the time), and IBM's AIX development was based on Sys V (it
was), and some of IBM's Linux contributions were based AIX work (appears to be
true), then SCO definitely had a cause of action against IBM for copyright
infringment and possibly trade secret infringment. And the damages could be in
the $ billions.

Of course, the subsequent mess is a whole different story.

But there you go, something nice about SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: capitalist_pig on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT
Nothing is true. Everything is an advertisement.

(My apologies to Hassan i-Sabbah.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Consider the audience
Authored by: prhodes on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:05 PM EDT
One thing I have't seen considered is the audience at which Rob's speech was
aimed. If I understand correctly, it was primarily UnixWare and OpenServer
users/developers/admins (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). These are
probably 'techy' people, and are also those making recommedations to their
bosses about whether to migrate away from SCO products. If they have done any
investigating/reading about SCO vs the world, they are likely to have stumbled
across Groklaw (maybe indirectly, through /.). If SCO can (through Rob)
discredit Groklaw in their eyes, they might be more likely to believe the FUD
and less likely to recommend moving away from SCO products.

This would also be a reason why the speech was posted on SCO's website - I doubt
anyone else is going there.

Just a thought.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT
It got started over on the SCO board at Yahoo yesterday.
I was wondering what was going on and now I know.
If anyone is registered there, I'm not, post an astro-turf warning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rude, Crude and ... Economically Challenged
Authored by: sleadley on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT
The economic arguments in Mr. Enderle's "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy It" are crude (as in "ignorant", not as in "vulgar") and wrong. He poses Linux/GNU, and by extention the rest of the FOSS community, as the bad guy(s) in a zero-sum economic game. He would be correct if the economic "game" were city/state craft guild competition in the Middle Ages. In a modern economy, the correct way to think of free and open source software is as the rising tide that floats all boats. The only loser here is a monopoly promoting an inefficient economic model, i.e. Microsoft.

Scott Leadley

[ Reply to This | # ]

A mistake, I think
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT
I think it's a mistake to spend time or give any space, replying to Enderle

IMHO that's what he wants. A debate about him, his personally, and how groklaw
is "misunderstanding" and "misquoting" his arguments.

Ignore him. IMHO his views aren't important to anybody but him - unless you make
them important.

His keynote made him look a fool IMHO

His reply in support of his keynote was marginally more moderate, but also made
him a look a fool IMHO but in a different way.

But imagine how much more of a fool that he would have looked if he had offered
a "reply" in support of his keynote, and all of us had given his
original keynote the total lack of attention it deserved.


[ Reply to This | # ]

heise found the right words
Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT

The German site heise found appropriate words for Enderle's speech. They called it a "new low in the intellectual debate about Open Source" and commented Enderle as an analyst demantling himself.>/p>

I agree and suggest to ignore this guy in the future. It's a waste of time.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Frustration speaking. Ignore me.
Authored by: nanook on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:45 PM EDT
This is getting more than ridiculous.

Mr. Enderle and others like him seem to be (mistakenly I believe) under the impression that "J. Q. Public" still has a belief that self proclaimed experts can be trusted. They still seem to believe that those of us "out there" hang on every word these "experts" spew forth, as if the power to make a decision is beyond our tiny little minds and that we need those of their ilk to tell us what to think, what to say, even whether we are entitled to have an idea or opinion.

I say drek. That may be a "made up word," but if so I recall reading it many times in published works, so 'common usage' leads me to believe it is an acceptable one. It's better than the brown sugar Enderle used anyway.

I don't recall any misquotes of Mr. Enderle's words on any site that I choose to read. I don't recall reading any "FUD" (except in the other direction) on any of the sites that I do read. I do, however, recall reading at various sites many articles, by many seemingly open minded people, that utterly refute his diatribe and his passionate; one could almost term it "zealous," defense against "those that attack Microsoft and SCO."

Unchallenged. There are many on the World Wide Web that have strong feelings about the current Publicity Campaigns seemingly orchestrated by entities that have a strong motivation to attempt to destroy Freedom of Choice. The bone of contention that I have with Mr. Enderle and others like him, however, is the identity of the entity or entities doing the attacking, and that of those defending that Right. Does the "experts'" concept of Freedom not include the Right to disagree with an "expert?" I won't call them idiots, I'll leave that to the "experts." I have a suspicion there are many that would agree with my disagreement with Mr. Enderle's point of view, but I have no entitlement to speak on their behalf, nor do I claim any. This is me talking to "them" only.

As far as I am aware, no person or group of people in the Open Source Community at large, or any of the many "focused communities" that I see as sub-sets of that larger group, has attempted to take anything away from the representatives of Microsoft or SCO or any of the "expert analysts."

Except for their ability to lie publicly and remain unchallenged.

If that is FUD to them then those people, and Mr. Enderle specifically, are apparently not native to, or functioning in, the same universe as the rest of us. It is stated in the article on Linuxinsider that there have been "so many misquotes and misrepresentations" of his keynote address, yet he doesn't offer any evidence of that, as has been pointed out. But then I have almost never (never at all?) seen any evidence from him on any subject, nor have I ever seen any evidence from those he admits to being a representative of. Press conferences and publicity campaigns in controlled fora are not evidence. Mr. Enderle and his friends and coleagues seem to think that we the public are so naive as to believe on scant or no evidence just because of who they are. My advice; "Get over yourselves."

By the by, a more personal note directly to Mr. Enderle;

Profanity is the refuge of the intellectually and verbally incompetent.

You can quote me on that too.

Charlie Mahan

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: ike on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT
This has been bugging me ever since I first read the quote. I can't help think that the following admission would be REALLY interesting if there were details as to the actual events.

With Microsoft my relationship goes deeper. A few years back, when I was first starting out as an analyst, I got myself into a lot of hot water by doing something I knew was wrong to prevent a crime from being committed. ... By all accounts I would have lost my job and probably had to change careers again if it weren't for Bill Gates personally coming to my defense and pointing out that what I did probably kept a lot of folks out of jail.
Some thoughts:
  • RE admits to doing something he knew was wrong. Hmmm ... how wrong? Unethical by professional standards? Illegal? Against company policy? Note that if RE is to be believed (a stretch, granted), whatever he did was so wrong that it required someone of Bill Gates' clout to get him off the hook. That RE would have "... lost my job and probably had to change careers" points toward professional ethics (loss of licensure?) or illegal action.
  • It was done to prevent a crime from being committed that would have put a lot of people in jail. Very interesting. What was the crime, who were the people who would have been charged, what were they doing, and what company/companies were involved? The context appears to implicate either Microsoft or a Microsoft business partner.
  • It was something that Bill Gates defended RE over, but was sufficiently within-the-ordinary for BG that he may have forgotten it.

Does anyone have any idea/memories that could bring some light? For starters, we have a crime for which "a lot" of people could go to jail, presumably because they are all involved in planning or committing it. They are probably in the computer industry and work for Microsoft or a Microsoft business partner. It's probably a white-collar crime (IP theft, cracking, maybe??). Preventing it required action that was at least unethical but does not appear to involve reporting anything to law enforcement.

We also have a time frame: "A few years back, when I was first starting out as an analyst...".

So who was planning what? How did RE learn of it? What did he do?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle is Trolling
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 03:59 PM EDT
Note how he gives no specific evidence of his claims. This isn't unusual--he
has nothing concrete to give.

But his agenda is twofold:
1) Discredit all who discredit him. Note how anyone from Groklaw is a
"spy" whereas a normal person would call people attending a public
event in order to report on it "reporters."

2) Troll the Linux community. He does understand these things. His invocation
of the many meanings of 'free' is just another attempt to highlight that debate
within the FOSS community, and to exacerbate it.

This isn't the first time--before, he used BSD vs. GPL licensing. Other times,
he's used other things. He's a marketer (inspite of his curiously perjorative
use of that term) and his appeal is to those who currently know nothing about
this issue.

For example, if you want to, lets say, poison a local river with carcinogens you
can expect local residents to complain vociferously. You can't debate them on
the terms of "we don't want poison in our rivers," so you look for the
most radical environmentalists you can find, and shift focus to them. Maybe you
can find some "naturalist" group that believes in going around naked
and that they will eventually be able to survive off sunlight alone, not even
eating plants or something crazy. You shift all focus to them as the source of
the "slander" against your company, while you quietly poison the local

Every time you're asked something, you merely give a non-answer mentioning this
group, you question the motives of the questioner (implying that they're in with
this crazy group), etc. This is a very basic form of manipulation, but it's
also common and effective. People (hopefully) will eventually build up
tolerance if they see enough of this nonsense (reporters, lawyers, judges, etc.
tend to manage this quickly), but to the uninitiated, this is entirely too

I only hope that his audience is shrinking due to the steaming mounds of
nonsense he's been producing lately.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Divide and Conquer
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 04:21 PM EDT
Folks. Dont fall for this trap...
This is an age old trick..
And SCO/MS/Shills have been using it consistently...

First is BSD vs GPL. They are trying to get the support of BSD license

Then they talk of how things are much better managed by FSF as opposed to
Linux...again trying to cause a rift...they know there's already some between
linus and RMS - can it be exploited?

Now it is Slashdot vs Groklaw. There has always been an undercurrent - they want
to make use of that.

Probably the next target is KDE vs GNOME?

They cant perhaps do RHAT vs Novell (SUSE) as both of them are sworn enemies -
darn - missed oppurtunity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...sometimes the emperor really is naked.
Authored by: KenWilson on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT
I think Enderle sums up both his own paranoid rant and newSCO's actions quite
well in his second from last paragraph:

"...sometimes the emperor really is naked."


[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: El_Heffe on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 04:54 PM EDT
SCO vs. Groklaw
by moexu (555075)
on Thursday August 12, @04:39PM (#9952406)

I think Groklaw is the biggest thorn in SCO's side. The media has been pretty
content to just print whatever random press release SCO throws at them without
doing much (if any) verification at all. Groklaw has been consistenly
documenting SCO's actions, court filings, and contradictory statements to the
press, which makes it much harder for SCO to try their case in the media rather
than a courtroom.

Groklaw is also something that SCO could never have forseen because it's never
been done before. Hundreds of volunteers donating their time to get court
procedings and transcribe them, research and debunk questionable claims to the
press, and write thoughtful articles explaining the technology being used so
those who don't have the background can understand what's going on.

It's the power of the open source model applied to law.

It's anti-FUD, and it's been the worst possible thing for SCO's media campaigns.
Go PJ!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw and SCO shills
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Its pointless to say something like this without being labeled a troll, but it still has to be said. You don't need to believe me. Some groklaw readers, when presented with an opinion counter to their own, automatically detect SCO-foolery, regardless of motive. So eat this like you'd eat any other salted dish.

Groklaw used to just report facts. Groklaw does in fact still report facts. But, now there is venom laced in every story. PJ, you've changed. It is 100% understandable that this has happened. You've been attacked, both personally and professionally. But denying the change is just silly.

The Groklaw message -- its signal to noise ratio -- has fallen, even as the quality of its signal has increased (more and more interested parties doing deeper and deeper research). Sounding wounded and indignant enters emotion into the equation, something they will win on every time. Stick to the facts, tone it down. You don't need to take attack tones in commentary. They'll bring themselves down.

Oh, and for everyone else, attacking Slashdot pre-emptively based on something a SCO shill said is just uber-lame. Think about it.

I'd post on my nick, but I'd prefer you all still like me. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Congress is Enderle's, SCO's and MS's real audience
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:00 PM EDT

Since last summer, I've decided that SCO, Microsoft
and their familiars are not, and never have been, talking
to the open source or even IT communities. I've seen
nothing to change my mind.

Congress and other parliaments are always their target.

They can't win in court, so they want legislation outlawing the
GPL and Linux. This can come in various forms -- patents,
copyrights, national security, a combination of these, whatever.

This may come after the November elections in the U.S. If Bush
wins, they'll have more time. But if he loses, watch for it between
Nov. 3 and Jan. 19, the period between the election and the day
Kerry is sworn in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do I identify astroturf?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:00 PM EDT
I'll be dead honest (especially since this is an anonymous post :-) that I tend

to believe what I read. It's a bad habit not to go over what you read with an
extremely critical eye, including here on Groklaw (although I've found Groklaw
to be more genuine than a lot of places, in my opinion). But I'm a tech and I
don't have the right mind to analyze thouroughly what I'm reading. Any
suggestions for critical reading of materials beyond the basics (checking the
source, understand the subject matter, etc...)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Recent Slashdot entry
Authored by: joef on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:15 PM EDT
At 4:20 PM EDT slashdot posted a comment on this story headed "Are You
Ready for the SCO Blitz?" Cmdr Taco appears to be amused by the whole

His comment ends with: "The whole thing is really fishy, but the story is
really worth reading just to see the weird battle occurring between SCO and
Groklaw now."

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:15 PM EDT
Good luck to anybody from SCO who tries to Astroturf Groklaw or Slashdot. The
only differences in the reactions from readers/posters will be that the
responses on Groklaw won't contain vulgar language. I really can't see how
Astroturfing on advocacy forums can be productive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl smells good
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT
And you can't say that about most open-source advocates, can you? It's
because people with valid IP are sure to wash frequently and use the finest
cologne. In a world that doesn't enforce our IP rights everyone will smell bad,

and thats just unAmerican (TM).

I'm not saying that PJ smells like fish. That would be wrong. Just that Linux
makes people smell bad, and everyone at IBM stinks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Taken in Moderation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:26 PM EDT
Ummmm, I am sorry but since when was Slasdot an unmoderated site? Not, it is
not moderated by the SysAdmins. It is moderated by the members. Considering
the readership of Slashdot, I do not believe we shall be seeing many pro-SCO
posts. Unless they are clearly of a highly sarcastic nature. Because what
other form pro-SCO comment could there be? Slashdot is grassroots. The public
provides the story and the commentary. They also drown out the idiots.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Just asking a simple question
Authored by: oswiz on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:28 PM EDT

is referred to in the Enderle dialog below. So is Pamela Jones of Groklaw also
part of OSRM which discovered 283 potential patent violations of Linux and
OSRM's insurance sales?

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT

PJ, only one thing ...

You are fantastic.

Keep up the good work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Jaywalk on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT
And he predicted that "open blogs" like Slashdot will start to tell SCO's side of the story, and then the media will get to understand what is really going on.
I've been on Slashdot for a while now and of course they tell SCO's side of the story. Where else would we use those "Funny" mod points? But it's hard to remain objective sometimes; a lot of the articles take a tone like, "You'll never guess what SCO said this week!" It's like the old press reports from the Iraqi Information Minister.

As for astroturfing Slashdot, it would be an interesting test of the moderation system. The old-timers with high karma have more mod points than newbies, so trying to have a lot of newbies on trying to skew the results would be tough. And, since user IDs are assigned sequentially, a block of newbies signing on would stick out like a sore thumb. And unless SCO says something more Interesting/Insightful/Funny than they've said in court, their posts are going to be smacked down either in moderation or meta-moderation.

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can anyone take Enderle seriously after this speach?
Authored by: k12linux on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT
'There are people who get up every day, work a 9 to 5 and go home to their families trading their lives for varying degrees of cash. In my view, though clearly not theirs, they are selling their lives very cheaply. These are wage slaves and the difference between people like that and a zombie is generally lost on me.' - Enderle

Did he really just call everyone who has a steady job and a family they "go home to" a zombie? Funny considering that these are the same type of people making decisions a bout their corporate IT strategies. They're the same ones making the decisions about t heir non-profit, governmental or educational IT choices as well.

Then he says that these good hard-working people are the ones supporting Linux? But that this is a bad thing? How is this a bad thing?

He clearly indicates that he thinks choosing Linux is purely an emotional choice and couldn't possibly be due to evaluation of strengths of open source software. Somehow I don't believe that millions of IS managers, IT directors and system engineers have al l put their jobs and company $ on the line just on a whim without regard to ROI and TCO of Linux solutions.

Oh, no doubt there are those few in IT who are willing to do just that due to emotio nal or their own moral reasons. But lets face it, technical people and engineers in ge neral aren't known for going the "emotional" route on stuff. We tend to like to stick to facts and logic. We want to see proof in a real-world environment. (The most beaut iful and artistic bridge in the world is still a complete failure in the engineer's eye s if it collapses the first day under normal use.)

Quite frankly, most of the technical people I know who deride Windows don't do so ou t of some hatred of monopolies or resentment for Bill G's wealth. Heck some of them ev en admire Microsoft as a company. No, instead they have had bad experiences with Windo ws in the real world... repeatedly... for years. And they're tired for waiting for it to work as promised with each new release.

It's ridiculous to claim that choosing Linux is always a purely emotional choice. D oes he really think IBM put a billion dollars into Linux simply out of malice for Micro soft or SCO? Does he honestly think that large company's' IT people are spending a lot of time and money migrating to Linux "because it is a cause and their life lacks one "?

Get real. You don't go into a board room, request a billion dollars just because yo u want to "stick it to SCO." In short, Enderle seems to have clearly indicated that he doesn't represent the IT/IS professionals who aren't part of the big software companie s. Instead he seems to actually resent us.

- SCO is trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's on Slashdot now
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:48 PM EDT
And reading on +4, quite some articles there have the humor right on. check it out yourself.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Free Software Bad, Free Hardware Good
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Commentators like Mr. Enderle are convinced that "free software" is
bad for the economy and thus all of us.

I must have overlooked the article where he denounced Bill Gates recent
suggestion that hardware will be free in a few years time.

I guess I should prepare to close my (hardware design and manufacturing) company
and lay off my staff, or retrain them to write software!

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: cadfael on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT
If nothing else, I think I will go turn on willing to mod on /. again for the
first time in a year. The noise level over there is usually a little higher than
I like, but it might be worth it for awhile...

Maybe Cmdr. T and the boys just
wanted us back and asked RM to give us a reason to return...(just


[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT
i'm sure we've all had a "friend" or two like our mr. enderle.

you will know you have one if you find yourself often feeling angry or bad about
yourself in their company.

you will notice that they often say things that are just a shade off when
discussing you with other people and/or will ascribe intentions and meanings to
your actions inappropriately.

you will notice that they tend to compliment you in back-handed ways.

but mostly you will know them because they will shocked and horrified that you
could ever think these sorts of things about them and don't know where you got
those interpretations of their actions/words when you broach the subject.

nothing can be gained in arguing with them directly. the only approach is to
attempt to counter the fud in a neutral and factual tone without being dragged
into a "debate" on the subject.

ps a real friend is interested in knowing how not to hurt you, even if it is
hurtful to them to be told they are hurting you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

with friends like these...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT
i'm sure we've all had a "friend" or two like our mr. enderle.

you will know you have one if you find yourself often feeling angry or bad about
yourself in their company.

you will notice that they often say things that are just a shade off when
discussing you with other people and/or will ascribe intentions and meanings to
your actions inappropriately.

you will notice that they tend to compliment you in back-handed ways.

but mostly you will know them because they will shocked and horrified that you
could ever think these sorts of things about them and don't know where you got
those interpretations of their actions/words when you broach the subject.

nothing can be gained in arguing with them directly. the only approach is to
attempt to counter the fud in a neutral and factual tone without being dragged
into a "debate" on the subject.

ps a real friend is interested in knowing how not to hurt you, even if it is
hurtful to them to be told they are hurting you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT
Wow! Neil Wehneman's line-by-line analysis of Enderle's speech was wonderful!
Of course, it will probably enrage Enderle further if he ever bothers to read
it. Nothing provokes an emotional demagogue worse than having his words
dispassionately dissected and shown to be objective hogwash. Well done, Neil!

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 06:29 PM EDT
When I read the last thread on the Munich situation, I found an unusual amount
of posts calling for patents to ensure the programmers are paid. I doubt very
much this is a normal position for /.ers but it matches Darl's
"prediction" of support for those things he made at SCOForum.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO moles
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 06:34 PM EDT
So we should now be on the lookout for SCO moles, eh? And this is different
from Enderle's fear of "Groklaw spies" how, exactly?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not on /.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 06:54 PM EDT
I don't think you'll see a successful astroturfing in
praise of SCO on Slashdot. Whatever you think of
Slashdot, it's not an unmoderated site. There are
literally thousands of moderators over there, and for the
most part they call 'em like they see 'em.

Indeed, such a campaign on /. could well backfire.
Once dozens of SCO-positive messages start showing
up, the moderaters will pick up on it and start marking
anything friendly to SCO as "Troll, -1." SCO will
therefore ensure that even truly spontaneous,
unsolicited comments favorable to SCO will be
modded down on the assumption that they're astroturf.

Oh, I'm sure that SCO has some /. accounts with
enough positive karma to mod some of their friendly
messages upward. But karma only lasts so long when
you abuse the system, and the /. meta-moderation
system will shut them down fairly quickly.

Truly, I feel that the moderation on Groklaw is done with
a much, much lighter touch than over at /., where
moderation depends mostly on popular opinion and

[ Reply to This | # ]

And there's a Disection too
Authored by: cab15625 on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 07:00 PM EDT
Sorry, I somehow missed an entire paragraph in the article. Someone please
delete the parent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 07:05 PM EDT
I'm sure someone already sent this to PJ but just in case:

Enderle Predicted SCO Would Fail
by: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on 08/12/04 06:40 pm
Msg: 166516 of 166523

"Market research firm Dataquest Inc. expects sales of Unix systems to
stagnate and begin to drop off by 1999, according to Rob Enderle, senior
software analyst for the San Jose, Calif., firm."

"Although Unix has been around much longer than Windows NT, sales of Unix
are only twice those of Windows NT, according to figures from International
Data Corp. in Framingham, Mass. Robert Enderle, an analyst with Dataquest,
Inc. in San Jose, Calif., predicts Windows NT will outsell Unix by six times
in 1998."

Both are from 1995 articles quoting Enderle when he was at Dataquest, so I guess
Enderle did get one thing right in predicting SCO's declining Unix sales almost
10 years in advance.


So now he's saying people should invest in SCO and their Unix business??? I hope
PJ writes about this! *smile*

[ Reply to This | # ]

A new take on Enderles' SCOG performance from someone who was there.
Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 07:33 PM EDT
raoulduke_esq on Yahoo SCOX board has come up with a theory I havn't heard
before. Message 166326.

He was there, and after two or three days of pondering decided that one possible
reason for Enderle being so over the top was to provoke a response from any FOSS
people who may have been there. Any disturbance or raucuss events could then be
put down to the hippy rabble which constitutes FOSS supporters and Groklaw
supporters in particular.

It's worth a read. I,ve seen people speculate he was drunk, that he got
overgeed-up at the Rah Rah before hand etc. But this has a real ring of truth in
explaining his Summer Madness. If this were the case its perhaps just as well
Sparticus didn't stand up as he could have played straight into Enderles hands.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another tidbit in parsing the speach
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT

Enderle said:

"By all accounts I would have lost my job and probably had to change
careers again if it weren't for Bill Gates personally coming to my defense and
pointing out that what I did probably kept a lot of folks out of jail. He didn't
have to do that and, to this day I doubt he even remembers he did, but I

He says he kept a lot of people out of jail. Were these innocent people or did
he protect true criminals from rightful prosecution?

Honestly, there are some people I don't want to keep out of jail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Wanna Be A Groklaw Spy
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 07:46 PM EDT
I Wanna Be A Groklaw Spy......

But only if it means I get to wear a trench coat and fedora and blow things up.
And have all sorts of nifty lethal gadgets that can blow things up. And drive
around in a very fast car and blow things up. And fly off to exotic locales and
blow things up. And shag the cute IP lawyer babe in the cube next door
(especially if she's in the trench coat and fedora). And have really cool theme
music that plays as I blow things up.

OK, I'll settle for the trench coat and fedora.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe for Enderle's next speech, we should get lots of people
to show up in trench coats and fedoras.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thinking in different terms?
Authored by: LordKaT on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 08:01 PM EDT
While an astroturfing campaing is highly possible - given the fact that SCO is
in litigation with a multi-billion dollar organization, and is now forced to
focus upon a voluntary project - I think astroturfing on Slashdot and Groklaw
may only be part of the idea. Consider this: why would SCO spend time and money
preaching to a group of people that will readily lynch them? No, if SCO was
smart, they would preach to the rest of the IT world. Unless they're run by a
deaf, dumb, and blind pig (of which, I believe Darl only qualifies for two of
those) SCO is going to post on "mainstream" websites. SCO is going to
get their version of the story out to the mainstream before the undeinable facts
Groklaw has comes into light.

Think of it like this: many tech sites have a "comment on this" style
interface (the "open blog" as Darl put it) with their articles,
editorials, and opinion pieces. SCO could, quite easily, flood these articles
with pro-SCO propaganda. The next stop would be regular blogs - of which, there
must be hundreds of thousands about tech in general - that post information
about SCO. In fact, I would not be surprised to see places like Leoville or even
my own website (which isn't exactly popular) become enveloped with such

From there on, you may get the occasional post on Slashdot and Groklaw, but I
highly doubt we'll see a change in overall tone on both of these sites. No,
we'll see personal blogs attacked, message boards dedicated to IT flooded, and
any site that welcomes feedback on the subject will receive numerous e-mails in
support of SCO - all of which will come from "a loyal reader," or
"a long time reader, first time poster."

So, while our "home turf" is going to be fine, SCO is going to use a
viral method - one that doesn't rely on the tech media - to get their message
out there.

Quite honestly, this shows that SCO is afraid of the community they're
attacking, but they see a possible weak point, and are going to attack it.

The problem we face as a community, however, is that the astroturfing will
involve subtle statements which will signal bias on both Groklaw and Slashdots
part. So, when somone - who is not really familiar with either site - comes to
visit, they will easily see "bias to the truth." This is due, in no
small part, to PJ's editorials, and the news posting system that Slashdot has.
The weakness that SCO has found is that we are so overwhelmingly at odds with
SCOs opinion that once SCO can influence the average person, they will have the
upper hand.

In the end, it's not going to matter, but some advice for PJ and the mods of
Groklaw: watch your actions. Don't do something rash, and make sure you don't
have a sekelton in your closet (and, if you do, make sure you have a good
story), because I can gaurantee that SCO will start to attack you personally.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Serious Replies
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 08:19 PM EDT
In the few weeks I have been reading Groklaw, I have noticed ad hominun attacks
and not reasoned replies.
I have been researching the GPL and seek constructive criticism.

The GPL is without question about *works that come within the subject matter of
copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103,*.

Does anyone at Groklaw dispute this assertion?

Direct quote from the GPL:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

These are without question rights that are equivalent to *any of the exclusive
rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106.*

Does anyone dispute this fact?

sec. 301. Preemption with respect to other laws
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable
rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights
within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of
authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the
subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether
created beforeor after that date and whether published or unpublished, are
governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any
such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes
of any State.

See the: *are governed exclusively by this title.*

Question: Is the GPL a "part" of Title 17 ?

The GPL is certainly a contract. Daniel Ravischer a prominent IP attorney
analyzed the validity of the GPL under common contract law:


"B. Contract Arguments
81. The crux of any mass-market public software license
enforceability analysis lies in the application of the
relevant contract doctrine to the license. The contract
analysis proceeds with two prongs: first, scrutiny of the
procedural aspects of the license; and second, review of the
substantive terms. The GPL and MPL are not unenforceable for any procedural
reason. Further, the substantive provisions of the GPL and MPL are enforceable.
Therefore, no prevailing contractual argument undermines the enforceability of
mass-market public software licenses."

Question: Why isn't it preempted under sec. 301?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Simple Math
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 08:24 PM EDT
I think the math is simpler.

SCO + (Linux this + Linux that) = Lawsuit
SCO + (License this + License that) = Lawsuit
SCO + (Groklaw this + Groklaw that) = Lawsuit

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 09:02 PM EDT
To quote PJ:

And he predicted that "open blogs" like Slashdot will start to tell SCO's side of the story, and then the media will get to understand what is really going on.

I interpret this to mean that SCO is arranging an astroturf campaign. How else could he predict future behavior on Slashdot? I now believe McBride's prediction indicates they will happen.

Because Darl said this, it must be part of a plan? If I remember correctly, I've heard Darl say a lot of things that:

A: Where lies.
B: Were said by him without any actual knowledge.
C: Never happened.

I think its all a bit way off, and plays into the wrong hands. I'm seeing people tossing astroturfer around like its a term they've been using online for years. I'm seeing paranoid posts.... I really don't take anything Darl says with a grain of salt anymore. They attacked groklaw all through SCOForum, and the keynote iced the top. Your reply, I have to be honest seems a bit paranoid & reactionary in return.

And already... how is this jab/counter jab working outside?

Slashdot - CmdrTaco:

but the story is really worth reading just to see the weird battle occurring between SCO and Groklaw now.

The whole astroturf bit is too tinfoil hat, and can well backfire, just like the SCO Website "false attack" story(s) did.

Campaign or not, except for some of the growing paranoid posts I wrote of above, any intentional troller (astroturfer is to reactionary sounding) will get a concise reply, with facts, figures and links in return. Groklaw at its best.

This continued Enderle business, here, and elsewhere on the net, is not showing too well for FOSS and continues to create the controversy his speech obviously intended to do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 09:19 PM EDT
Like it or not, Enderle is right.

Enderal has a lot of inside knowledge into the industry, and enderal claims scox
will win, you can bet on.

Scox has been ripped off by ibm, and deserves to be compenstated.


Have I been deleted?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marketing exec
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 09:43 PM EDT
I'm not a marketing exec.

But you are! A braining eating zombie marketing exec! From outer-space! Sent here to steal our precious bodily fluids!! Confess, or we'll have no choice but to bring out the... comfy chair!!!!

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. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I just finished having a great time reading
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 10:01 PM EDT
the posts on slash dot of all the hilarious reactions to McBride, Enderle,
and TSG. I laughed out loud over many of the posts.

The posts at slash dot clearly indicate how badly McBride is running TSG.

The technical community knows TSG has no future. TSG is doomed so
expect the worst from them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Challenge to SCO and Rob Enderle
Authored by: corwyn on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 10:13 PM EDT
Just a suggestion, if SCO, Darl and Rob Enderle think that PJ and the rest of us
are not willing to listen and hear what they say, I'd like to make a suggestion.
Create accounts on Groklaw, post to Groklaw, let's have an open debate about the
different points of view. Keep it clean, state your position, but also be
willing to listen to others and their positions as well. Don't troll.

I challenge SCO and Enderle to an open, mature, civil debate, right here. I
seriously doubt they'll respond or wish it, and I seriously doubt they can keep
it civil, but it's worth a try.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 10:46 PM EDT
Read the comments on page 1. There's an exchange between Enderle and one JDR
that is illuminating.

This guy congratulates Enderle on ruining his own career, and Enderle replies
with "thanks for the threat, and for providing your name and company name.
Look for both in print".

So he falsly accuses the guy of theatening his career, while at the same time
delivering a threat - exactly the behavior he condemns. People like this get no
respect from anyone, including themselves, because they don't deserve any.

After that, it just degenerates (on Enderle's end) from there in a few more

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Quite Amusing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 12:06 AM EDT
Enderle seems to be unbalanced.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 10:52 PM EDT
In all sincereity, I wouldn't want to be alone with this guy.

Here's his speech: SC O's page.

He's always talking about Groklaw "spies." Can someone explain how there can be "spies" at a public event? If I work for Tiger Beat magazine, and go to an NSync concert, am I a "spy?" Good gracious, how much more more paranoia and persecution complex can he demonstrate?

"I've always had a sense for bull**** and bullies and have never cared for either." --Enderle

They are attacking because they disagree with the legal rights of these companies, they are handing out punishments designed to destroy livelihoods, and often making physical threats....I have a serious problem with people who are abusive, particularly those who use any excuse to cross the line into physical, emotional or verbal abuse. In my view this is uncalled for and the people who utilize this practice, this is a direct quote for Groklaw, aren't worth the air they breathe. " --Enderle

UMMMM when has anyone on Groklaw threatened SCOG with violence? I think, rather, that it is Darl who is going on and on about how he carries firearms with him, hires snipers when he goes speaking in public, uses expressions of violence (e.g., "sock in the mouth") when talking about business deals... Who is the real bully here?

Reading Enderle's speech reminds me of Ghandi's words.

  1. First, they ignore you.
  2. Then they laugh at you.
  3. Then they fight you.
  4. Then you win.

Well, guess what, boys and girls. Next stage we win.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Astroturfers under the beds
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 11:54 PM EDT
SCO has cleverly divided the community. Our old friend, Darl McCarthy, has
everyone looking for "astroturfers under the beds". And PJ says that
it is now
OK to ignore critisism of Groklaw, because it's coming from
communists - err, astroturfers.

So here goes nothing. I have been a reader of Groklaw for ages. And I plead
for PJ to please reign in her acid tounge. The sarcasm and vitriol of articles
like this will do nothing for the cause of Groklaw.

PJ's increasingly bellicose articles are starting to sound just like the
opposition - this Enderle article is so spiteful that the underlying truth
seems irrelevant. In order to survive, Groklaw must maintain the moral high
ground - catty quips and one-liners are the same tools they use.

If you are going to fight against huge corporations on their own terms, then
they will write the following on your tombstone:

First they ignore you. Then they fight you. Then you fight back. Then you

PJ, in her anger, claims that Astroturf is "the corporate version of free
speech". But PJ herself is involved in an increasingly high profile
Could Groklaw be seen as a corporate shill? No one who knows the history of
Groklaw could make this contention. But as we have all seen, truth and
history is not important to our enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting use of products.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT

He has a little story about a time when he was using a free product...

and right in the middle of a presentation to EDS's sales force it decided to uninstall itself
My question is, what was he doing using a trial version of a product for a professional presentation? Can he not afford, say.... Microsofts product for the presentation?

Just curious!


[ Reply to This | # ]

Astroturf here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 12:13 AM EDT
Potential problem solved! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slashdot is moderated
Authored by: CustomDesigned on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 12:42 AM EDT
Users with high karma (which takes a while to build up) have mod points. The
editors have unlimited mod points. But they probably won't need to use them.
Any astroturfers will get modded to -1 oblivion. You can configure slashdot to
show you all the -1 posts - they are not deleted - but you'll have to wade
through pages and pages of obscenity that makes RE look like a boyscout to find
any SCO astroturfing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 02:31 AM EDT
Just a note about this quote : "I watched the tapes of the Nuremberg
experiemnts", etc."

I suspect that there's an error in Mr Enderle's reference, and that what he
refers to is Stanley Milgram's experiemnts on submission to authority, conducted
at the Yale University, during the 70s.

I think you know about these: the white lab-coated experimenter takes two
subjects for an experiment on word memorization. Subject 1 reads a list of words
Subject 2 has to memorize them; he sits in a special chair that is wired in
order to send electric shocks. Each time 2 is wrong, 1 sends him a shock. The
voltage is indicated on a dial, the last part of which is read and bears the
word "Danger". The shocks have to get stronger and stronger as the
experiment progresses. If 1 hesitates (when 2 moans in pain, for instance), the
experimenter tells him to go on.

Well, the truth is that there's no current, 2 is an actor, and the real subject
of the experiment is Mr 1. What is tested is actually this: how long will he
continue to harm someone when told (simply told: ni orders, no threats...) by a
figure of authority? Of course, it was more than slightly related to the
massacres performed, just a few years earlier, by young American soldiers on
Viet-Namese civilians.

It's a beautiful and strong experiment, and it was even used in a movie ("I
as in Icarus" by Henri Verneuil, based on the JFK assassination and on the
Greek colonels dictatorship of the 70s). But what it has to do with Nuremberg
(the Nuremberg trials? the Nazis?), with free software, Linuw or Groklaw is far,
far beyond me.

Christophe Thill
Paris (France)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spies? They put up the whole transcript
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 02:43 AM EDT
What is all this talk about spies. Who needs spies when they put the whole
transcript on a website. Then Pamela spends time defending herself, stating
that there weren't spies there. Whether there were or not makes little
difference when they put a transcript on the website. Wait a minute, maybe
there should have been spies there to see if what they put on the website was

Well, usually whatever the other side accuses you of doing is what they have
been doing. You can about count on it. They accuse the other side of doing
what they do to take the attention away from themselves. It then looks like the
other side started it when it is found out the accusers are also doing it. See,
also doing it. Actually the accused side didn't do it, but now it seems like
they did. Cool how that works isn't it? Psychology. And this is being used
many places to help people get what they want.

So this is a very interesting thing. Put up a transcript on a website where it
can be seen by anyone and in it accuse someone of sending spies to the lecture
that is in that transcript. Why don't I think of stuff like that? And people
fall for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What an interesting social experiment Groklaw is!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 03:08 AM EDT
So much anger and frustration here. Over 60 years ago my parents told me that
sticks and stones will break my bones but names (or words) will never hurt me.
I have found that to be true. Yet people here are livid because SCO lies,
Enderle lies, Brown lies etc. etc. Then there is the impatience with the legal
system, "How long is this going to take?".

Has television done this? Is it supposed to be over in one or two hours and the
bad guys are found and punished? We claim to have the greatest legal system in
the world. Are people disappointed because it doesn't work like TV says it
should? Does "free speech" exclude liars? Are our lives so insecure
or empty that we have to become emotionally involved with corporate bs artists
who we will never meet and will never affect our lives in any meaningful way?

I just hope the psych folks are watching.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Critical opinion at slashdot? Are you kidding?
Authored by: scoobrs on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 03:32 AM EDT
I wouldn't be surprised if astroturfing succeeds to some extent at Slashdot. You have to understand the difference in audiences. There's actually one thing Enderle is right about-- Slashboys. I'm a frequent Slashdot user and I'm sad to report that you reguarly get stupid comments on stories which suggest:

  1. Many slashboys believe charging money for things is evil. I used to be a Linux, A+, and MCSE trainer as my only job during college and the local LUG had too many misguided folks who refused to pay one cent for training by principle. That's one reason I'm not a Linux trainer anymore.
  2. Slashboys often don't RTFA (read the frickin' articles). They assume to know things they simply can't or trust the author of the original post too much. They think that comments were designed for preaching to the choir and then act accordingly.
  3. Slashboys seem to think Beowulf clusters are clearly superior to custom hardware supercomputers, which to them are analogous to buggy whips. I'm now in the supercomputer industry and the opposite is true if anything. Modern clusters, especially those using open standard networking, suck for bandwidth. These Slashboys refuse to listen to reason when even their own leaders whack them with it, however. More hardware technology is needed in the marketplace, not less, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry still.
  4. Slashboys think there's a simple technological solution to everything. If Bill Gates ever did wield a clue stick, it was to say the obvious at a Digital Divide conference and point out that you can't enjoy being digitally connected without food, water, shelter, and power. Without that, a network connection is just a toy for the baby to chew on while dreaming of milk.
  5. Slashboys are often language lawyers who will fall for cheap tricks to make them look petty and who will support your straw men in a debate, rationalizing their argument only with "X said something like this once." X being Stallman, Torvalds, Perens, or PJ. They also take overly emphatic views about Your Rights Online articles. This is why trolling there is so much fun.
  6. A sad number of Slashboys live in a bubble where idiotic political ideas like libertarianism, anarchy, or communism make sense. This is often because they're young, idealistic, and/or spend too much time in front of the computer to understand what they support. Quite often, Slashboys won't even know which candidates back them on technology or critical issues except for senators in other states.
  7. Some Slashboys behave like every opinion of theirs is constantly justifying their purchase of a product or use of a technology. It's just like an Apple owner who went through childhood ignoring how their computer had terrible separation anxiety with floppy disks, didn't frequently blue screen because it was a white screen instead, and then didn't complain about the tedious networking because the owner never tried to do it.
  8. A number of Slashboys treat Slashdot as their main source of news. I admit I'm guilty here because I first learned of 9/11 while at college by reading Slashdot that day. However, Slashdot only has one main beat and often only one angle. One should diversify their news sources from non-TV network sources (i.e. no orchestrated news and politics) and the like to avoid being culturally ignorant.

I'm not an astroturfer and frankly, I'd like to change these things. I noticed from Bruce Perens' sig line that he's practically given up on Slashdot lately. I'd prefer to see that Slashdot folks learn to recognize these faults and try to represent themselves better in public and the first step is education.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 04:10 AM EDT
hey guys,

i just installed sco's latest unixware 7.1.4 and it is really fantastic. linux
will be washed away by this far superior product.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Major Marketing Blunders in Tech
Authored by: dfarning on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 04:17 AM EDT
"McDonalds actually does this best and should be used as an example. It
rotates its clown regularly so that people don't get invested in one actor and,
instead, are invested in a character that McDonalds owns and controls. Since you
never know the "person" if the person has human failings, there is
less likelihood that the character and person will become intertwined and damage
the brand or product. The Jack in the Box character is much the same."

The above is taken from a Rob Enderle piece found at

While I may disagree with Mr Erderle on many issues, he has always struck me as
insightfull. I'm puzzled by the fact that Mr Erderle does not seem to notice
that Microsoft has used Mr McBride of SCO and Mr Brown of AdTI as clowns and is
now using him as a clown.

What are the above individuals getting? A couple months of fame and front page
bylines. As soon as the focuse groups realize that actor has run out of good
sound bites, Microsoft will toss them aside for someone new.

Yet, they will forever be know as MS clowns and spend the rest of their lives as

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 04:30 AM EDT
Why All the Attacks on Groklaw?

Because from the other side of the fence this diverse group of people from all
over the world start to look more and more like a massive unstoppable rolling
tank devision who will only grow stronger with every piece of FUD launched in
the world they care about.

So why all the attacks ?

Because Groklaw is so effective it sometimes even scares me !

Retep Vosnul.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If we detect Astroturfing...
Authored by: PeteS on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 05:07 AM EDT
Then my suggestion would be to move (not remove) the posts to either the troll
thread or to a newly made 'Astroturfers detected' thread :)

Then we could look at the astroturfers in all their coalesced glory (or perhaps
ignominy, depending upon your point of view).


Today's subliminal thought is:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't even ignore him.
Authored by: Mike Calder on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 05:36 AM EDT

The amount of comment caused, not by any real event, but a virtually
content-free presentation at a poorly-attended loser's convention in the middle
of miles and miles of b****y desert.

A talk given by someone important? Someone knowledgeable or influential? Who?
Say again?

I'd never even heard of this Enderle fellow until I read about him on Groklaw
some months ago; I followed a link to an article by him, read half of it. That
was enough to get his number.

Please, please, follow the advice of Sam Goldwyn.

Pay no attention to him; don't even ignore him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Sneakster on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 07:24 AM EDT
Ghandi, who everyone loves to quote, was a pacifist. He won because he refused to fight.

Two Points that need to be made here:

(1) Your statement is utterly false: Ghandi never once said not to fight the British tyranny and he
did fight them. He rightly reckoned that they could not be defeated by violent overthrow
as that was simply beyond the power of India. So instead, he devised his methods of non-violent
as a far more effective means of fighting.

P.J. and the Groklaw community are similarly using non-violent means (simply documenting
and publicizing all the lies) to fight the modern Evil Empire(tm) (Micro$haft and their
various hired minions, such as TSG). It is only necessary to compare the propaganda spew coming from
people like Enderle and McBride with P.J.'s writings to see who is using and promoting violence
and who is not.

(2) Ghandi eventually let himself get slaughtered by an assassin that was absolutely known
to be coming to the event at which he was murdered; because of his total committment to his
principles of non-violence he could not permit armed police to protect him from this assassin,
and so he died.

I'm sure Enderle and TSG would much prefer that the P.J. just passively stand there whilst
they or their paid shills engage in false character assassination; but unfortunately
for them, P.J. has never once claimed to be a Ghandi. She is sticking to her principles of
meeting the lies with hardcore documentation of the Truth, and exposing the wicked designs of these
amoral sons-of-bitch for all to see, regardless of what any community pacifists (or paid enemy shills)
have to say about it.

BTW, whilst Ghandi succeeded in his goal of home rule for India, he never beat the real
enemies of India: paid professional agitators who, whilst pretending to be part of their
various communities, were actually working to keep the Muslims and Hindus at each other's
throats so as to divert attention from the efforts of their employers to grab control of the
various British business interests which had profitted massively under Imperial rule and
were now about to be nationalized by a United India under Home Rule.

PJ is starting to take the fight to the enemy, and this is what I am begging her to stop.

P.J. doesn't go around shilling or posting trolls on their public message boards, amigo.

Michael A. Hobson
Web Programmer (I am definitely *not* a lawyer)
mike (at) crusader (dash) services (dot) com
ICQ: #2186709
Yahoo: warrior_mike2001

[ Reply to This | # ]

TCO and Patents: Gartner about Munich
Authored by: JeR on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT

Here is a quick and dirty translation of Detlef Borchers's August 13th, 2004, article on Heise Online titled "TCO und Patente: Gartner zur Münchener Linux-Migration":

TCO and Patents: Gartner on Munich's Linux Migration
Analysts at Gartner Research see new omens in Munich's migration to Linux: Not just the patent issue, but also the so-called "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO) caused the delays in the execution of the migration to Linux, according to Gartner analyst Andrea di Maio. In a comment about the events in Munich, di Maio writes: "The patent issue will have made clear to Munich that they underestimated the costs and risks when they calculated the TCO for the LiMux project." Accordingly, di Maio, vice president of Gartner Research and formerly responsible for the management of the Y2K problem at the EU Commision, advises all companies and governments to include judicial and political factors in their TCO calculations.
The Gartner Group is regarded as the inventor of the "Total Cost of Ownership". The concept was launched in 1987, in order to compare the cost of PCs to the cost of terminal-base solutions. Beside the cost of the purchase of hardware and software, Gartner tried with its TCO model to incorporate all maintainance cost (support, training) that would accumulate during the lifespan of a PC in a company. After the introduction of Gartner's TCO model, various competing models appeared on the market, such as Meta Group's RCO (Real Costs of Ownership). How these individual models are calculated is kept as a secret by each of the analyst groups.

non-breaking space

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle chooses his notebook by color, startup sound and wallpaper
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
Rob Enderle put aside his notebooks:
- IBM T-40
- Toshiba Tablet
- Gateway (17-Inch)
- Sony 505
in favour of a new Acer Notebook in Ferrari Design
based on:
- Startup sound being a Ferrari racing car sound
- Ferrari racing car wallpaper
- Ferrari optical mouse in Ferrari red


To cite: "One impressive piece of execution is that when you fire the
machine up it plays a WAV file of a Ferrari race car revving its engine. That
alone is worth the relatively low $1,899 price of admission. (I found it priced
as low as $1,725 at PCVideoOnline.) Even when I'm in a meeting, I don't turn the
sound off because of the unbridled envy that seems to show up in the eyes of my,
granted mostly male, co-attendees. So far no one has complained."

So he loves to buy some sound-file and wallpaper for
$1,899 and hates free software. At least he is consequent.


[ Reply to This | # ]

A Reminder for Mr. Enderle
Authored by: cab15625 on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 08:54 AM EDT
Here's how RMS defines "Free Software" according to the Jargon File:

free software: n.

As defined by Richard M. Stallman and used by the Free Software movement, this means software that gives users enough freedom to be used by the free software community. Specifically, users must be free to modify the software for their private use, and free to redistribute it either with or without modifications, either commercially or noncommercially, either gratis or charging a distribution fee. Free software has existed since the dawn of computing; Free Software as a movement began in 1984 with the GNU Project.

RMS observes that the English word “free” can refer either to liberty (where it means the same as the Spanish or French “libre”) or to price (where it means the same as the Spanish “gratis” or French “gratuit”). RMS and other people associated with the FSF like to explain the word “free” in “free software” by saying “Free as in speech, not as in beer.”

See also open source. Hard-core proponents of the term “free software” sometimes reject this newer term, claiming that the style of argument associated with it ignores or downplays the moral imperative at the heart of free software.

Just in case you are reading this Rob (now, would that be considered spying in your terminology?) perhaps it would help to avoid confusion in the future if you could inform yourself about the terminology you use when you try to discuss FOSS and related movements. Always assuming that you agree with us here that confusion is a bad thing. The Jargon File is available at

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: defender2803 on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 11:22 AM EDT
I've been looking for a positive comment about SCO on different forums and other
then the obvious "I'm a SCO stock holder/employee please help our stock
price" posts, I haven't found one. Has anyone seen one since I can't even
think of nice things when I hear the word SCO? Gets all dark and dreary.

Golly gee Wally, why is Enderle so heinke?

[ Reply to This | # ]

You know, every time you mention 3nd3rl3
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 13 2004 @ 12:42 PM EDT
You increase his page rank and therefore his own perceived importance. Please
don't feed the tro11s.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Enderle Blow by Blow
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 15 2004 @ 01:06 AM EDT
"Clearly any "alternative" platform that has backers who can't
control their language, or worse, use methods which now are classified by
several governments as terrorist acts, should be on the list of things you would
like your competitors to use but would avoid yourself like the plague."

Hey Bob remember this???

In several of your columns found around on the internet you have mentioned foul
language as a negative. Don't deal with people that use it....

Now go back and read your SCO forum raving and please let us know why it is ok
for you to use foul language and yet for others it is a no,no.

This is not FUD, this is not taken out of context it is your words.

Explain in a rational calm manner--if that is possible. And please skip the
foul language. If I want to read that kind of stuff, I will simply go to the SCO
site and read your words there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )