decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:12 AM EDT

SCO CEO Darl McBride is unjustly trash talking Groklaw again. So I would like to present the antiFUD, since the journalist involved in the latest interview didn't contact me to let me respond to McBride's attacks or to find out if what he said was even true. It's not true in a substantial way.

In an interview in Enterprise Linux-IT, he says the following:

"'I can't believe some of the stuff I read on Groklaw,' McBride said. 'It's completely one-sided against our company. I've seen instances where someone posted a positive comment about SCO, and they were either viciously attacked or the comment was removed.'

"SCO has tried to post comments on the site as well, but McBride said they are frequently not accepted and do not appear in the discussions.

"'A site that covers legal topics should include both sides,' said McBride. 'It shouldn't be filled with rants and insults about a single company.'"

So, for those who care about truth, here it is.

I have asked SCO on more than one occasion to present their viewpoint on Groklaw. In case they try to deny it, let me present my proof, as is my wont.

First, after their July 2003 teleconference, when they didn't call on me to ask a question, as usual, I sent them an email. At the end of the teleconference, they announced that anyone whose question wasn't answered could email them. I did. I wrote about this incident too on Groklaw, so they had two opportunities to respond. They never responded. Their PR firm said they would, but they never did. Here is one of the questions I asked them:

"1. My understanding of the GPL is that no binary-only code can be released in conjunction with GPL code, when the two make up one program as opposed to being a merged aggregate. In other words, while it is acceptable to release two separate programs in the same distribution, one GPL and the other proprietary, any merging of the two codes into a single program would require that the proprietary code be released as GPL code and that source code be made available or that no distribution be made. Any distribution under any other terms than the GPL would be a violation of the copyrights of the GPL code. Can you please explain how it would be possible for you to offer a run-only license for binary code without violating the GPL? And if it isn't possible, are you not putting enterprise users in a bind, where they can't simultaneously be in compliance with you and with the GPL? Cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/GPL-faq.html#MereAggregation"

If they wished to have their side of the story on Groklaw, that was one opportunity to present it. They never answered my email, though the PR person told me repeatedly they would.

But I am a persistent soul. When Blake Stowell attacked Groklaw last March in an interview in Linux Insider, they contacted me to respond. In my response, I offered SCO an opportunity to say anything they wanted on Groklaw. In fact, Linux Insider made my offer the subheading:

The Groklaw Story, Part Two
By David Halperin
LinuxInsider
03/08/04 7:52 AM PT

"SCO doesn't like it that the truth is out there," Groklaw's Pamela Jones told LinuxInsider. "But it's out there. If [Blake Stowell] wishes to make a statement on Groklaw, stating his position in some matter, he's free to send it to me."

I never received anything from SCO in response to that very public, open-ended offer. Not a single word. Total silence. Maybe they were afraid, because in the interview I reserved the right to respond. And now they complain that their side isn't allowed on Groklaw? Puh-lease.

On their further complaints about comments favorable to SCO not being "accepted" or being removed, first, we don't screen comments prior to their appearing on Groklaw. So there is no pre-acceptance involved. So unless he was misquoted, that is an obvious untruth. On deletions, I suggest the following, since I am aware of no such comments being deleted: If SCO wishes to send me a list of all the comments they allege they tried to post but "never appeared" or were allegedly deleted on Groklaw, I'll publish them as an article. Why? Because I know what they are saying isn't true. I have never to my knowledge deleted a comment just because it was favorable to SCO.

As for trolling and astroturfing, SCO will have to accept that it is not acceptable on Groklaw. If they wish to identify themselves as SCO employees openly and then present their views, that is acceptable. They have never done that that I am aware of. We did have a flood of anonymous and very obvious astroturfers show up some time back, but they gave up after a while. No one attacked them, but they did laugh and parody them.

I would like to point out that SCO has announced that their new website will allow no comments. Mr. Stowell has said that they would be flooded by contrary views if they allowed commenting. So what they will be offering will be * their* view. They call their site www.proSCO.net, for heaven's sake. The name alone fairly screams "One-Sided". And yet I would remind SCO that their CEO just said that a site that covers a legal issue should present both sides. From that standpoint, Groklaw is miles more fair than they say they plan to be.

And there is something else I'd like to explain. When Groklaw started, it had as one of its purposes to present truth in response to FUD. By our stated purpose, we are not trying to be the New York Times. We are trying to let the world know our side of the story, just as SCO now says they will be telling theirs. Frankly, I think we already heard their side in a blizzard of press releases and articles in the mainstream media, which at the beginning told their side of the story only. We have attempted to provide the media with information that we hope will be useful to them, so they have access to the rest of the story. In that, we have had a measure of success. If there is one thing SCO doesn't need help with, it's PR and telling their side of the story. Their problem, in my view, is that at some point you need substance to back up the PR.

I would remind the media that in its most recent letter to the judge in the Red Hat v. SCO case, Red Hat's attorney wrote the following, and it is a sentiment we have seen expressed in the IBM case too:

"As demonstrated by IBM at the September 15, 2004 hearing, SCO continues to make inconsistent statements to this Court and to other courts, taking whatever position suits its purpose at the time."

If they are accused of that in a court of law, what might they do with you? I would appreciate you contacting me when SCO starts spinning its stories to you. It's the only fair thing to do. And to those of you who thought I was imagining things when I said I thought SCO was astroturfing, here you are. Straight from the horse's mouth.

I didn't just fall off a turnip truck, you know.

UPDATE:

Bob Mims has a story about all this too. And it includes two quotations you don't want to miss. First, Blake Stowell:

"We've had a lot of stakeholders, investors, partners, customers and developers who want access to [legal filings]," company spokesman Blake Stowell said. "But they have also told us they want to do that without having to go to Groklaw, that they prefer not to have to endure all the negative comments."
Isn't that funny? It doesn't pass the snort test. As if developers don't know how to bookmark the Legal Docs page, which has no commentary or comments, just the legal documents themselves, or one of the Timeline pages, which have the legal documents in strictly chronological order, without commentary at all. And I believe even SCO investors know how to just not read comments. The other quotation is from Linus:
"Groklaw does nothing but shine the light on what SCO is doing," Torvalds said. "[SCO] are like cockroaches scurrying about in a panic saying, 'we'll need the anti-light.'"

I think the article is well worth a visit over to the Salt Lake Tribune for a complete read. Enjoy.


  


More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD | 784 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Correction here please
Authored by: trs on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:23 AM EDT
subtantial -> substantial (line 3)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trolls go here.
Authored by: Waterman on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:29 AM EDT
We know you want to post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT goes here...
Authored by: Stinger on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:34 AM EDT
Thank you.

---
It is not I who is mad...
It is I who is insane!

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:40 AM EDT
PJ,

Why do you offer McBride an account so he can give an official response to the
comments made here? Given them the account called, say, SCO and ensure that only
him or his representitives have access to it. That way, everyone will know when
SCO officially reponds to its detractors, and similiarly it will give us a means
of tracking their knowledge of the case, just incase they should
"change" their opinion in the future.

Stephen

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:45 AM EDT
You know the only net effect of what Daryl is doing will be more hits to groklaw
from people that wouldnt otherwise know it exists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:48 AM EDT
Why does SCO needs www.proSCO.net if the already have http://www.darlmcbride.com/

:-)

H@ns

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here we go again...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:02 AM EDT
Seems ol' Darl got his mind set : "'I can't believe some of the stuff I read on Groklaw,' McBride said. 'It's completely one-sided against our company. I've seen instances where someone posted a positive comment about SCO, and they were either viciously attacked or the comment was removed.'

compare to:

All the accusations of millons of lines of source code copied...

Dear Darl: Could you please just show us a singe concrete example of either? It would be soo much easier to believe you.

Mysjkin

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great Job Groklaw team! We got his attention!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:03 AM EDT
Apparently, WE are important enough that Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, who gets paid
to do his job, has to spend his company's resources (money and time) to "do
something" about Groklaw.net. We are a force to be reckoned with. Yea for
our team!

Our efforts have made a significant difference. Now with his website, more
people can see the whole sinereo. I just wonder why SCO.COM didn't suffice in
snuffing out the information coming from groklaw.net. Microsoft doesn't need a
separate website to fight back the attacks against them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's too new for them
Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:13 AM EDT
The concept is way too new for SCOG to grok.

Formerly, before the Internet Age, the only critique a company would get about
its public and court statements would be what journalists reported. Their
problem with Groklaw is simply that they can't handle un-sanitised public
opinion.

Of course, what they will find is that whatever untruths they choose to peddle
via www.prosco.com will get fully dissected and refuted here and elsewhere on
the 'net.

They should be *thankful* to the Groklaw community, really, for pointing out the
flaws in their argument; this can only aid them in honing their argument down to
the irrefutable facts. It's just a shame for them that there won't be anything
left when all the froth and bubble have been washed away.

It's proof, once again, PJ, that you are doing an invaluable job here - I know
it's dis-heartening at times, with the things some people say, but it is
worthwhile.

-cybervegan

---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

A suggestion for PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT
You should make ID's for Mr. McBride, Mr. Sontag, and other's and personally
send the ID's to SCO so they can log in and you and everyone else will know the
comments those ID's make are indeed SCO employees. That will clear up confusion
as to who is who.

As for me, I am open to real talks with them. If they respect the basics of
civility, then I have no problem answering them in kind. And that would be a
stipulation as well for the those that answer them, even if your not trolling,
any breach in etiquette will mean removal of those posts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would love to see SCO side here on Groklaw
Authored by: kb8rln on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:27 AM EDT

Really I would love to understand SCO side. I think fair and balance is good.

First I would like to know on SCO UNIX tree show Linux 2.4.0 code went to UnixWare.

More from Unix SCO tree shows that Solaris has Linux in it.

My other question if there is Linux Code in UNIXWARE and you know it, why did you sue IBM before a legal search for infringing code as you lawyers stated last hearing you did not?

penguinman.com

---
Director Of Infrastructure Technology (DOIT)
Really this is my Title so I not a Lawyer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I though "prosco" stood for ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT
pros(ecute)co(mpany)

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: mhoyes on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT
It's interesting. I have posted some comments on this site that could be
considered to be "pro sco", and I have never had them removed. Now,
mind you, as this case has progressed and nothing has come out from the SCOG
other than motions for more discovery and more time, it has seemed to become
more "anti sco". This would appear to be a normal reaction by people
who feel they are being accused of stealing but being shown nothing to prove
it.

Now, I've also been trying to follow the Yahoo groups posts, and there seems to
be a campaign going on over there against Groklaw as well, which just makes me
wonder at the timing.

meh

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would LOVE for SCO to publish it's opinions - it's more rope to hang themselves with.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:31 AM EDT
I, personally, would love SCO to publish it's opinions. All it has done is give

IBM and other defendents in their lawsuits more ammunition to use against
SCO, themselves.

Since SCO sponsors their new propaganda site, and particularly if the author
of any article is identified, then they would have to be VERY CAREFUL to not
contradict any statement made by their own lawyers or witnesses in court.
That would be evidence of perjury. They would have to be like our former
beloved but impulsive president's testimony about the various definitions of
the word "is" in order to avoid perjuring himself.

Since they have already given contradictory statements in their court cases,
having an SCO site just gives SCO more rope to hang itself.

It's so funny that SCO would do such a thing.

After all, as the police officer often states: You have the right to remain
silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

An SCO propaganda site would make it's statements there much more
admissible as direct evidence against it than the hearsay statements they
have made to the press - which IBM has already used well against SCO it it's
counter claims and partial summary judgment motions.

It's so stupid that SCO would do such a thing.

I'm so happy that SCO would do such a thing. It's definitely more rope to
hang itself with.

It's so funny that SCO just can't keep its mouth shut.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"'I can't believe some of the stuff I read on Groklaw,' McBride said.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:42 AM EDT

""'I can't believe some of the stuff I read on Groklaw,' McBride said.
'It's completely one-sided against our company."

Darl, you need to read more than just the legal documents your lawyers have
prepared.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Being economical with the truth
Authored by: elderlycynic on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT
As some people will have noticed, I have posted items that
have supported some of SCO's claims. A few people got a bit
close to responding with flames, but the majority were very
civilised. I have seen this happen to other posters, too.

SCO's real problem is that they have so very, very little
that can be honestly defended. I said that I could disprove
two of Randall Davis's statements, but that it would weaken
his evidence only by a few percent.

However, so what? Darl McBride's twaddle is just verbiage
aimed at laymen.

The really interesting thing is what RedHat's lawyers have
said. They have accused SCO's lawyers in a memorandum of
attempting to mislead the court. The judge may choose not
to notice that but, if not, it is a statement that I would
expect to result in one or the other sets of lawyers in
being slapped down HARD.

Is that what happens in that jurisdiction?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:54 AM EDT
The irony that I can't help but notice is reading the article, and seeing Mr.
McBride's comments about how only one side is covered on Groklaw. However, the
article only covered Mr. McBride's opinion.

Also, what is up with calling it a "legal defense" website? Aren't
the the plaintiff in most of these cases?

I must be missing something!

Perpetual_Newbie

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Greebo on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:06 AM EDT
Fantastic!

I'd match PJ against any PR department anytime :)

Darl is once again exposed for the FUDster that he really is.

Greebo

---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner

[ Reply to This | # ]

Since SCO Loves to Litigate, Sue Them for Libel!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:07 AM EDT
There are consequences for willful slander and defamation in this country -- and
perhaps it is time for Darl to put one of his spare lawyers on the task of
defending him.

One who is partial to SCO might claim that Darl is being merely hyperbolic, but
indeed, it goes much further than that: Darl is merely lying. Problem is, lies
not met with truth are all too often believed, as the political campaigns in
this country prove every election cycle.

That said, I would hope that one day PJ asks Darl to put his money where his
mouth is, and to back his silliness with fact in a court of law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unanswered SCO FUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT
On Friday April 30, 2004 Blake Stowell was quoted as saying:

[He] says the company writ still says that SCO thinks that
"the GPL is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's
claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

It also says that "the GPL is selectively enforced by the
Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by
IBM or others is waived, stopped or otherwise barred as a
matter of equity."

And finally, that "IBM's claims are barred or pre-empted, in
whole or in part, by the laws of the United States."


<http://www.10e20webdesign.com/news_center_latest_technology
_internet_news_may_3_2004_sco_reaffirms_that_linux_is_unconstitutional.htm>

This is the most potentially damaging claim SCO has made about FOSS and its
future for us. Why doesn't PJ answer this SCO FUD with a detailed explanation
about legal issues concerning pre-emption of copyright licenses
under copyright law and how it could impact independent FOSS developers?

IBM can take care of itself with respect to SCO's contract claims. If the GPL
was ruled invalid it would be the most damaging thing that could happen to FOSS
and its dreams. If SCO wins this claim all the IBM stuff about contracts won't
help the non-proprietary world one bit.

WORRIED

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:17 AM EDT
Perhaps this is over simplifying. If the "anti-sco" comments are
bothering you, don't read them. The legal filings and PJ's summaries(or even
without PJ) are sufficient to keep up to date with what's going on (By no means
trivializing PJ, but the truth is PJ is just the icing on the cake, Groklaw is
WAY bigger than her, as Linux is WAY bigger than Linus. It's the it should
be).
In relation to the scox yahoo finance board, Groklaw.net has a very high signal
to noise ratio.
It's very frustrating for me to hear people complain about a choice THEY made.
If you think groklaw is a sham, get a pacer account and be done with it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quote from Mims atricle
Authored by: Kiaser Zohsay on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:20 AM EDT

Stowell said the company, other than providing summaries on more complicated, lengthy filings, generally will let legal documents speak for themselves.

s/summaries/spin/g

---
IANYMIAADST D -- "I am not your mother, I am a dog" said the dog.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:27 AM EDT
Dear Darl,

If it makes you feel any better, just think how good a reason you are providing
other people not to try to steal Open Source resources.

Imagine if you couldn't ship Apache and Samba with your OS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One-Sided? Puh-Leese.
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:28 AM EDT

"SCO has tried to post comments on the site as well, but McBride said they are frequently not accepted and do not appear in the discussions."

And yet, prosco.net reportedly will not be allowing the posting of comments, instead serving as simply another outlet for the TSG position. What's wrong with this picture? Can you say 'credibility'?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT
Here's a question, just out of left field...

Is the reason that SCO employees do not want to visit this site, that they might
taint themselves?

There's a great deal of legal analysis, Unix history and additional information
that appears here. Suppose that things don't go SCO's way, and the question of
whether litigious and licensing activity was criminal crops up. If you wished to
plead ignorance at a later date, this wouldn't be the place to go.

This is no to accuse SCO employees of illegality, but one must be cautious and
protect against all eventualities. Let's face it, a company with no claims to
Unix is suing IBM and others for acting in good faith, for something like $30b!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meanwhile over on the SCO IBM lawsuit pages
Authored by: jmc on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:41 AM EDT
Despite promising to list all the filings, they haven't bothered to list Judge
K's decision denying the "enforce the scheduling order" and
"scheduling conference" motions.

Or is it that they just promised to include the SCO and IBM filings not the
court's - or only when the court says what they want to hear.

Bet it won't be long before they say the judge is biased.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: kberrien on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT
since the journalist involved in the latest interview didn't contact me to let me respond to his attacks or to find out if what he said was even true.

Ah, the wonderful trade press!

This is a legal matter. It became that when SCO filed its suit against IBM. They continued to file further suits. ITS A LEGAL MATTER.

Groklaw represents SCO's positions on a regular basis. Groklaw stories often represent SCO's side to the exclusion of others within the stories. SCO legal filings ARE their positions on the issues.

If Blake, Darl, Baystar have anything else to say its technically irrelevant to the issues at hand. PR games outside the court is just confetti.

Here on Groklaw we discuss whats happening. This is usually Court happenings, filings. We do sometimes (like now) discuss the PR arena. Notice we don't discuss IBM PR? Perhaps thats because there is no SCO related PR spin comming out of IBM, very little out of Novell, and nothing out of RH, DC, or Autozone.

SCO, you created your bed, you lie in it.

- Kevin
WMD? WTF?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing into Darl's hands
Authored by: kberrien on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:49 AM EDT
I can see where your comming from. You need to exclude PJ from comments.

People have made accusations against PJ, her credibility, her "honor".
The "journalist" didn't contact PJ (as she's said). This is bad
journalism, even for the trade press.

PJ is defending herself, nothing more. She has that right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Plain English
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
On their further complaints about comments favorable to SCO not being "accepted" or being removed, first, we don't screen comments prior to their appearing on Groklaw. So there is no pre-acceptance involved. So unless he was misquoted, that is an obvious untruth.

You mean, it's a lie.

I know that Groklaw discourages inflammatory comments, but that isn't "comment", it's a demonstrated fact. There's no need to wrap it up to make it sound better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hilarious
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:54 AM EDT
SCO not able to tell their side of the story?

Just list:-

1. Every press release that is about SCOsource, SCO v IBM, etc.

SCO: Lots and lots

Groklaw: 0

IBM: 0

Novell: 1 or 2 (I think)

Red Hat: 1 (I think)

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0



2. Every teleconference that is about SCOsource, SCO v IBM, etc.

SCO: Lots and lots, around 20?

Groklaw: 0

IBM: 0

Novell: None AFAIK

Red Hat: None AFAIK

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0


3. Every forum/conference/keynote that is about SCOsource, SCO v IBM, etc.

SCO: SCOforum2003, SCOforum2004, CDXPO, Etre, etc. (lots)

Groklaw: 0

IBM: 0

Novell: None AFAIK except occassional comment at other conferences etc

Red Hat: None AFAIK except occassional comment at other conferences etc

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0


4. Every media appearance, interview, etc. that is about SCOsource, SCO v IBM,
etc.

SCO: Too many to mention (certainly hundreds and hundreds)

Groklaw: A handful

IBM: Virtually nothing, except the standard mantra saying they will say nothing
except SCO's case is meritless

Novell: A handful

Red Hat: A handful

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0


5. Web sites that are about SCOsource, SCO v IBM, etc.

SCO: www.sco.com (including on their main page, www.sco.com/scosource
www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit etc) www.darlmcbride.com and now prosco.net

Groklaw: 1

IBM: 0

Novell: A few pages on www.novell.com basically containing no commentary and
just documents

Red Hat: 0

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0


6. Number of letters sent to Fortune 1000 companies that are about SCOsource,
SCO v IBM, etc.

SCO: ~3000 (?) - at least 1500 in May 2003, either 1500 or 750 or ? in December
2003, and possibly others

Groklaw: 0

IBM: 0

Novell: 0

Red Hat: 0

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0


7. Number of letters sent to members of congress that are about SCOsource, SCO v
IBM, etc.

SCO: Hundreds - Apparently one sent to every member of the house and every
member of the senate

Groklaw: 0

IBM: 0

Novell: 0

Red Hat: 0

AutoZone: 0

Daimler Chrysler: 0



[ Reply to This | # ]

prosco and the corporate right to FUD?
Authored by: dyfet on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 09:55 AM EDT
When I think about what they might like to do with "prosco", I recall last year, when the supreme court dismissed Nike vs Kasky, which was the case where corporations claimed "corporate personhood" and "first ammendment rights" gave them a first ammendment right to lie that thereforce should trump California's truth in advertising laws, among other restrictions on corporate speech. I also recall Microsoft, among other corporations, filed briefs supporting Nike's right to lie position.

So what can they do with a prosco site that they cannot do or provide on sco.com itself? I thought perhaps they called it "prosco" perhaps because they wanted to make it appear as if it's an outside party doing the site, or at least someone who is not a direct employee. If they did find such a "Tokyo Rose" to run such a site, it could have been very ammusing in much the same way, but it seems they are willing to claim it as part of SCO itself.

What I think what this is really about is their effort to get better exposure for their case documents. Many of them are not written to the court or the case at hand. They often make wild and unsubstanciated or false statements on the progress of the case or material facts. They are clearly not written for the court, but rather for the public at large. I guess they want to have a place where they can showcase their filings, without any nearby and easily reachable commentary. It would seem to me this could constitute advertising. I wonder if Utah also has any statutes on truth in advertising...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Funny Stowell quote of the day
Authored by: k12linux on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT
"We particularly chose that domain name thinking it would very uncomfortable for our detractors to type in 'prosco' for any reason," Stowell said.

Please tell me he doesn't actually believe that Linux supporters would experience such 'discomfort' that nobody would visit the site to check on the lastest FUD. And this guy is being paid for his insite? What does he think the Linux community is made up primarily of Jr. High school students?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

To bob mims
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT
re: "But Groklaw, begun by paralegal Pamela Jones shortly after SCO sued
IBM in March 2003, also serves as a forum for her colleagues in the "open
source" community - a loose-knit, global network of pro-Linux programmers
and developers. Thus, each new filing generates floods of anti-SCO
postings."

I would like to refute this claim. This (as in me) "pro-linux programmer
and developer" is actually a Windows Programmer and Developer who uses and
developes GPL software for Windows. I personally do not like linux because it is
not up to scratch for my learning and developmental needs with reguard to the
hardware I have (Sorry Linus).

My interest in Groklaw came about especially when SCO stated that the GPL was
unconstitutional and threatened the american way of life. Now, I am not
american, I'm an australian, and from over here all I see is contradictions and
excuses. It might be seen different within the U.S but if SCO ever pulled
anything like this over hear, the ACCC (think securities and investment
commission with the power to tell you how to run your company or imprison you)
would of handed SCO's execs soap on a rope.

The funniest contradiction I have heard from SCO is recorded in court
transcripts for everyone to see, SCO vs Red Hat, SCO wanted a stay till the
copyright issue was delt with in the IBM case .... SCO vs IBM, SCO stated the
case isn't about copyright .... I'm waiting to see ic SCO or its legal team get
in strife over this.

SCO is still yet to produce undisputable proof of the public claims of copyright
and interlectual property violations. The proof they have made public as been
examined and disputed with evidence to back it up. The millions of lines of code
suddenly didn't exist when IBM asked SCO for proof.

SCO is causing its own problems by its own actions, if they stuck to their
original story, and showed undisputed proof, we'd be screaming at those who
cheated the opensource community instead of SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • To bob mims - Authored by: WildCode on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT
  • To bob mims - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT
    • To bob mims - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 04:20 PM EDT
    • To bob mims - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT
Playing into Darl's hands
Authored by: N. on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT
The worst is this latest trend of PJ claiming how she's bringing us "The Truth". If people can't see the danger in that sort of thinking, they haven't read enough history.

Sensible people will know that this site brings you "the truth according to PJ", which in 99% of the time is indeed The Truth, and there are plenty of people here to correct her for the other 1%.

This site's got a good track record too, which just cannot be ignored.

---
N.
(Recent [well, since mid-2003] convert to Linux)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A suggestion for those who only want case-related articles
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT
Here's a tip you might like to try. It will achieve your aim, our anonymous-posting friend, of visiting Groklaw only for the case-related articles.

Go to the Webmon homepage. This freeware program lets you periodically and automatically check for changed web pages. I've been using it for a couple years. It's for Windows only, but the Linux people know of their own clever ways to automate the same process.

Once you have the program set up, make a new entry for Groklaw. Use Groklaw's static headlines page for the address to periodically check. Set checking to a half-hour interval.

That's it. From now on you will be informed when a new article is posted on Groklaw. All you need do is fire up your browser to check if the new article headline interests you, and if not, forget about it til next alert.

(Interested persons please email me *directly* for how to set up Webmon.)

Alternatively, you could always just use an RSS feed checker . There are many ways for you to scratch your particular itch. So this resolves your issues, right? :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh Please
Authored by: Nick on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT
"The worst is this latest trend of PJ claiming how she's bringing us "The Truth". If people can't see the danger in that sort of thinking, they haven't read enough history."

Oh, give it a rest! That's not what she said. She was falsely accused of something, so she said, "that was wrong, here is the truth."

If I accuse you of shooting your dog, and you say, "Hey, that's not true! Here's the truth of the matter..." would I be correct to issue vague warnings of your messianic nature? Puleeze.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:13 AM EDT
In an interview in Enterprise Linux-IT, he says the following: "'I can't believe some of the stuff I read on Groklaw" [...]

Free publicity! Woohoo! PJ you must be thrilled. And from the horse's mouth even. Or whichever orifice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT
It's from the book <i>Stranger in a Strange Land</i>. In the book
it's a Martian word that has many meanings, including "drink," but
probably best translated as "to take in completely."

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:28 AM EDT
"We particularly chose that domain name [www.prosco.net] thinking it would
very uncomfortable for our detractors to type in 'prosco' for any reason,"
Blake Stowell

BS might as well name his site scog-voodoo.net or scog-mojo.net for all the good
it's going to do SCOG. Watch me type 'prosco.net': at the end of the day, SCOG
will be a lot less comfortable with the fact that I typed 'prosco.net' than I
will. I will make sur of it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I understand all the repetition now...
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT
quote from Bob Mims article: will let legal documents speak for themselves

So all the endless repetition really was for public consumption. Every document you find on prosco will basically repeat exactly the same message, drowning readers in a single meme.

But so what if visitors all conclude IBM is the cause of all delays or that IBM is hiding the evidence? The court isn't buying it and I see no sign that IBM is listening to SCOG shills or shareholders so it won't change anything. Even the less clueful journalists out there will get bored reading the same thing over and over again.

The idea the groklaw readers will be too digusted to type prosco! In one short statement Stowell acknowledges SCOG's image problem and reminds us how out of touch with reality they are. Priceless.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some of My Postings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:34 AM EDT
I'm personally very Pro-Linux, but I've found many sites on the net that
obsessively tout "SCO doesn't have a case!" whether they understand
the legal
process or not. They read every IBM filing like the word of a diety's messenger

and seem completely oblivious to possible points SCO is making. I think that
this type of rah-rah "Go Linux!" fan site is what SCO wants it's P.
Rosco site to
mirror.

I have to say though that when I post on groklaw, I don't always get
reasonable and intelligent answers. Unlike PJ's postings that are well reasoned

(if not a little biased toward Linux which I enjoy), my questions come from a
state of ignorance. I really don't want to fall in the trap of seeing there be
no
obvious way for SCO to win. A win is quite possible for anyone in our legal
system, because emotion can trump logic: the existing rules can be rewritten
or excepted because of the feeling of injustice before the court or on appeal.

I try to really give the benefit of the doubt to SCO in my posts and questions;

not because I want SCO to win but because I want to see the ways, avenues,
and possibilities they have left to win. Some commentary on some of my
postings has labelled me a Troll or Astroturfer. Though I'm not either, I do
see how my comments and questions could be interpreted that way. Still, I
feel that these accusations are more due to ignorance and blind Linux
fandom in some of the commentators than in a bias of this site itself. Many of
my questions have been answered quite intelligently by people like
AllParadox and Quartermass.

If there's anything I'd ask of the crowds at groklaw to change it would be to
not be so quick to cry wolf over a possible Troll or Astroturfer just because
the perspective favors SCO. There's a lot to be learned by understanding
one's enemy and that's often the perspective I try to ask my questions from.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An obvious question that Mr Mims should ask
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:34 AM EDT
|Stowell justifying the alleged need and mission for www.prosco.net:
"'We've had a lot of stakeholders, investors, partners, customers and developers who want access to [legal filings],' company spokesman Blake Stowell said. 'But they have also told us they want to do that without having to go to Groklaw, that they prefer not to have to endure all the negative comments.'"


www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ (emphasis added)
On March 6, 2003, The SCO Group filed a civil lawsuit against IBM citing misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. In an effort to keep the media and the public informed of the progress of this lawsuit, SCO is providing this web site with all of the latest filings and information from both SCO and IBM regarding this case. All of the legal documents posted here are public documents that are also on file with the U.S. District Court in Utah.


So here's the obvious question: Why do they need www.prosco.net, when they have already set up a site (indeed even before Groklaw existed) whose mission is supposedly almost exactly the same as prosco.net?


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc


P.S.
Is anybody taking bets that prosco.net will either simply redirect to (or mirror) stuff off www.sco.com? Or that it will go the way of the invoices that they were talking about sending to 40% of Linux users a year ago?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT
Blake Stowell said, they would mainly "let the court documents speak for
themselves".

Sounds like nothing you couldn't get here also. Maybe they will remove some of
the motions and replies, so prosco-readers won't notice how much they keep
repeating themselves...

TToni

[ Reply to This | # ]

Over at Yahoo...
Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT
Postings that sound remarkably like Darl's whine turn up frequently.
I guess we know who wrote the script ( if you hadn't figured it out before ) for
them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: ppentz on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:38 AM EDT
One of the greatest indications of the integrity of Groklaw is that it still
allows people to post anonymously. I know there have been requests to remove
that ability, but it allows people to submit contrary viewpoints without fear of
reprisal, even SCO employees. Contrary to what Mr. McBride says, I've seen many
pro-SCO posts here (and they haven't been removed). Of course I'd like to see
them admit to being an SCO employee, but the ability is there to safely post
pro-SCO comments. ProSCO is not going to allow feedback, never mind the ability
to post anonymously! No matter what they try to do, they end up looking bad.

It's so fun to see Darl squirm. Groklaw is having an effect!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing into Darl's hands
Authored by: PJ on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
Yes, it is. It's my face, my honest self.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing into Darl's hands
Authored by: Electric Dragon on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:50 AM EDT
It was not PJ who made the original accusations. It was Darl McBride. Since the
journalist who wrote the article failed to ask PJ for her response to
accusations made about her and the site she runs, I think PJ has every right to
make her rebuttal here. Likewise, if any of the SCO board want to put their name
to a reasoned, logical defence of their positions, including facts to back up
those claims, I'm sure they would be welcomed with open arms by many here.
However, as their techniques in the IBM lawsuit appear to extend only to
baseless accusations as a basis for requesting fishing expeditions through IBM's
CMVC repositories, combined with repeated delaying tactics, I view this as
marginally less likely than flying pigs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: pooky on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:53 AM EDT
Darl's problem is that he isn't just the CEO of SCO, he's tried to make himself
the champion of IP in the modern world because he is presiding over OpenSource's
1st big victory over proprietary software. In his mindset he will never be
wrong, no matter how many people tell him he is.

I'm sure PJ already knows why Darl will never officially respond on this site.
He can't win the argument when his side of it is dubious and full of flaws. Darl
will not respond nor will anyone at SCO because they simply cannot provide
credible answers to fundamental questions about the case. It's that simple.

-pooky

---
If at First You Don't Succeed, Skydiving Isn't for You.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Praise for Groklaw
Authored by: Electric Dragon on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:59 AM EDT
PJ,

It's easy to take for granted or criticise the work that's done here, so I'd
like to give my appreciation of the job you've been doing with Groklaw.

You and the other contributors (including but not limited to Frank Sorenson,
Quatermass, AllParadox etc.etc.), give so much of your time to work on this
site, to expose the public statements of SCO for the hollow words that they are,
to put the legal documentation into plain sight, and to scrutinise the filings
for anything substantive; and you do it for free (plus voluntary donations). It
is very easy to make baseless accusations - it is much harder to do the research
and back up accusations with fact. I for one am very grateful for the excellent
job Groklaw does in shining light onto SCO's claims, and at the same time
explaining the legal issues involved. If certain people (such as Mr. McBride)
get dazzled or blinded, well, that's their fault for trying to hide in the
dark.

I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that SCO's legal filings are full of
waffle and bluster and special pleading, whereas IBM's have been concise and to
the point. There is no use pretending that the two sides are equal or equally
competent when clearly they aren't.

Groklaw does not pretend to be unbiased: and nor should it. It is on the side of
truth and openness and if more people followed that example, the world would be
a better place.

Thank you PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are you uncomfortable typing 'prosco.net'?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:19 AM EDT
Why not just create a new domain scofud.net and point it at
prosco.net?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Nevita on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:22 AM EDT
As pro-Linux and anti-SCO as I am, there is such a thing as free speech (in most
countries). If you feel (as the SCO board apparently does) that Groklaw's
presentation is just propaganda and anti-SCO rhetoric, then you are free to go
to Pacer or just click on the links to the legal docs, as PJ has said. Your
browser does force you to read PJ's comments, or anyone else's.

Just as you have the freedom to criticise SCO, they have the same freedom to
criticise PJ and Groklaw, as long as it does cross any legal lines.

Mind you, you shouldn't just accept everything they or PJ say as "The
Truth". It is up to you to look at <i>all</i> the evidence and
make your own decision. This applies to everything in the media (especially
today, when the primary focus is ratings, not quality). You have a brain, so
use it.

Thanks for reading.

---
A summary of my grad school research:
1) Walk into wall.
2) Back up a step.
3) Repeat

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's happened to me...
Authored by: utahbob55 on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:24 AM EDT
I've had a post removed once. And to be honest, when I thought about it, PJ was
right to remove it. It wasn't an appropriate comment. It doesn't matter to PJ
whether its pro or anti SCO, she just wants a civilized forum.

So you just keep on doing what you're doing PJ!

Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shining the light
Authored by: Dashing Leech on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT
While reading the Bob Mims story, I found it particularly interesting that all of the web sites mentioned and referenced (see bottom of story) that currently display SCO vs IBM legal documents are all from the "pro-Linux" crowd. In other words, the people who are making the actual legal documents available to everyone are confident that these documents support the pro-Linux side, not SCO. If the legal documents didn't support the pro-Linux side it would seem to be "shooting yourself in the foot" for these websites to be making them available.

What isn't highlighted in PJ's article is also the fact that Groklaw supplies the documents from both sides. If Groklaw was completely bias and trying to present FUD, it would only present the pro-Linux documents, not the SCO ones. That's the nature of FUD, only presenting information in support of your position. I wonder if SCO will be making legal documents available from both sides. If they don't they will fit the FUD category. Groklaw openly presents SCO's position by displaying and quoting SCO court documents in their entirety. The fact that Groklaw stories and comments are anti-SCO only indicates that the bias of opinions of the members. It does not indicate a bias in the presentation of the legal documents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw v ProSCOG.net
Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:36 AM EDT
Groklaw - An internet site containing "opinion built on fact".

ProSCOG.net - An internet site containing "fact built on opinion"

Most people with an opinion on IT will recognise the difference. The few people
charged with providing this creation of fiction will find themselves under the
same disadvantage SCOG already have. There's just not enough of them. They
cannot bring themselves to understand one of the disadvantages of proprietry
against F/OSS revolves around just plain numbers.

I like playing on a team of many thousands against just a few. Unless we get
"sent off" we win because there's not room for them on the pitch.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A suggestion / compromise
Authored by: tdarkelf on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT
I like this site the way it is. I am amused by the comment section and spend way
too much time here. I enjoy the division and different points of views
expressed. The diversity of views and background of the posters makes this site
a daily stop for me.

I think the most useful feature of this site are
the law document are here for all to see AND
the explanations of them by PJ

I understand and agree with the policy of this site but I have concerns when I
read about posts being removed.

A small compromise, I think would help me (and maybe some othes).

Create another section on Groklaw and put all removed posts there, maybe a link
(with a warning) on the left side. That way I could go there and see for myself
what was removed.

When anyone complains that their post were removed we could all go there and
comment on what we think of the post and if (in our opinion) it should have been
removed.

I understand that this is PJ's site but I think that the feedback could/would be
useful.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Many eyes make bugs shallow
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT
No need to fear the FUD machine. They're few, we're many.

Isn't it wonderful what opportunities Darlie gives us to prove that Open Source
is better, even in when it comes to information?

It's all about mathematics: If you have N contributors, they can interact and
create value in N*N ways! Homework: What is N in the case of Groklaw?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Desaster Recovery or: how to place an ad
Authored by: worst-case on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:56 AM EDT
Well, this [Sceenshot] gave me a laugh.

have phone,

worst-case

[ Reply to This | # ]

Point of new website?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT

It will be interesting to see if SCO actually maintains the prosco.net set at
all. They haven’t updated either the “SCO in the News” or “Media Corrections”
pages on their own site since April and May, respectively. And the Darl McBride
site just points back to SCO.com without adding much that’s new.

What are the chances that the new site is little more then a way to get a few
cheap headlines and bash their critics? And aside from posting public court
documents and press releases what kind of commentary can they legally add?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If this site would be biased, I wouldn't be here
Authored by: Michael57 on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:13 PM EDT
I am out to get information and some narrative about what is going on and what
it means. I am personally slightly biased towards free software (but if you are
asked to pay for your software, would you not favor free software). At the same
time I am an information freak. I prefer my news to be unfiltered. I've got a
head of my own and I would like to make my own mind up.

As I am not familiar with American or English law and as English is not my
native language, I need a site like this one to get the information in a way
that is answering my needs.

I would abandon this site right away, if I would feel to be tricked to believe
someones onesided opinion.

I am very confident that I will be able to understand the court proceedings. I
have no doubt that a settlement will be reached. I don't know if this
settlement
will be in favour of SCO or not. I believe that the final judgement will be
reached. Sometimes justice takes a long way, but it reaches home too. In the
end
law will go its due course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw
Authored by: AllParadox on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT
"Beware what you really want. You will get it."

Mr. McBride's position sounds truly pitiable.

I propose, conditioned on P.J.'s approval, a new, regular, sub-topic.

We currently get Corrections, "OT" (Off Topic), and
"Trolls".

The subtopic will be "Official SCO Positions". The only main posts
under the subtopic must be from an SCO official or attorney, using their own
name and company position. They must be stating an official company position,
or be acting in their official capacity. Anything else will be summarily
deleted. Sub-posts to the main posts may be as before, with ultra-strict
politness requirements: no name calling (some of my posts would not pass this
test), no name mangling (it is impolite), polite name usage (Mr. McBride, not
Hey Darl), no direct statements of dishonesty ("Isn't this
inconsistent?", not "aren't you lying about"), very very strict
accuracy requirements. In short, the sort of very restrained language one would
use when suggesting to a judge that his previous ruling was in error, and that
it would be appropriate to reconsider the ruling. Be warned: P.J. would be well
within her rights to delete most any sub-post, if only to maintain a forum for
truly civil debate with our opponents.

No, neither Mr. McBride nor anyone at his company would ever be foolish enough
to take advantage of the free forum (I hear Groklaw's a tough crowd).

But at least, the next time Mr. Mims talks to Mr. McBride, he can ask that
worthy if he has had a chance to use his own, personal, forum on Groklaw.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Track: Who says you can't make money with Open Source
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT
The RIAA has been moaning about loosing money due to down loading programs. SCO
has been moaning about loosing money to open source software.

Apple computer developed and sold a product for downloading music and selling
the downloads. They took BSD and started the open source project Darwin.

Last quarter Apple had the best quarter in a decade. Contrast Apple Stock and
SCO stock over the last year. They both started at about the same place. Apple
Stock went up 50 percent now at $45 per share. SCO stock went down 75 percent
now below $3.50.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suing PJ
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:46 PM EDT
I don't think you'd get very far trying to sue someone for exercising their first amendment rights.

It would certainly be a short trial, but the discovery and motion practice would take years and cost millions$.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Simply Incredible
Authored by: ujay on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
I find it amazing that the SCO group, who purchased a level of credibility when
they purchased the Unix business, have, by their own actions and statements,
lost the credibility they held.

On the other hand, PJ, an unknown paralegal, has built up a level of
credibility, not only in legal circles, but with developers, IT personell,
management, and probably soon, the mainstream press.

And now those, who have lost all credibility in the minds of those who make IT
decisions, are attacking the credibility of the one who through hard work, and
attention to detail built that credibility up from nothing.

I would not ask PJ for a crtitique on an algorithm, but when she talks case law
and legal issues, I listen.

footnote:
I just reread what I wrote, and I should not be too surprised at SCO's attack on
the fruits of PJ's honest and difficult efforts. After all, they started this
by attacking Linux, the labor of many who worked hard and long to make a product
that has captured the tech industry's hearts and minds. If they can't do the
work, they attempt to marginalize those who can (and did).


---
Windows - How do you want to be exploited today.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
SCO needs only to show us the proof. Lines of code in Linux that belongs to
SYSTEM 5. "There is millions of lines in there. Copied line for line"
There words not mine. Then I will be paying attention to them. Otherwise there
bunch of liers and cheats. And who wants to listen to Liers And Cheats. McBride
acts more and more like a spolied brat, that is not getting his way, each and
every day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An uncomfortable aluminum foil-hat surmise - DOS and lawsuits
Authored by: Duster on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
The TSG has previously used the complaint of pro-Linux hackers carrying out DOS
attacks against their site as a means of garnering sympathy. This new site they
are proposing looks awefully like a sacrificial target. Aside from the obvious
FUD and astroturfing purposes, real or spurious DOS attacks on the site (its
running Win98 on a 386 say, and founders when csalled by two users) can be
employed as fertilizer for a crop of sympathathetic journalism.

Another potential use would be to use it to trawl (not troll) for the unwary
quoter. Dollars to doughnuts, any copyrighted commentary will be monitored for
its appearance in other sources. Since "fair use" does not exist in
the lexicon of the TSG, quotations without permission could easily be a source
of harassing law suits.

OK, hat's off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They should name their site Scoflaw.net
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT
That would be more consistent with their court filings. All they have to do to
genereate positive press is show some infringed code, but they just don't seem
to want to do that, presumably because such evidence doesn't exist. So it
really doesn't matter what they put up on prosco.net, if they don't have
evidence, they don't have a case or a 'side' to the story.

On the other hand, SCO is providing a perfect outlet for negative emotions,
greatly reducing penguin blood pressure worldwide. Really, after you post a
smart comment here don't you actually 'feel' better? I do.


---
Just Believe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT
IANAL, IANALU (I Am Not A Linux User). The outcome of this whole fiaSCO really
makes no difference to me whether Linux itself survives or not. I use MS
products because that's what my employer uses, and pays me to support. So Darl
can't label me a Linux-zealot.

What does make a difference to me is that Darl has taken a contract dispute, and
warped it in to an attack on the FOSS community. While I don't use Linux, I do
beleive that FOSS can and has made a worthwhile contribution to the IT industry.
Software developers who otherwise might not contribute are doing so, with
positive results.

Darl's comments regarding an IP Gold Rush, are laughable. He charges that
"(open source proponents) are looking for your gold". What does he
call what HE'S doing? Trying to claim IP created by thousands (tens of
thousands?) of individual Linux developers as his own is, to follow his
metaphor, "claim-jumping".


[ Reply to This | # ]

Am I the only one to be happy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:01 PM EDT
Seeing the reactions D.McB's comments are generated here, I'd just
like to say: why such angry comments? Why not just sit back and
relax? I, for one, welcome Darl's comments. Really. I hope that he
and his PR guys will continue as much as they can to comment on
the case and Groklaw. Really.

Please, M. McBride, if you are reading this, please understand that your
comments are really appreciated and we do hope that your new site
will prove a large success. Please, tell the whole world your point of view.
This is really helpful, not only for us, but also for Novell and IBM.

You see, M. McBride, IBM already hand out a whole book full of your
quotes to the judge. Your comments will really come up handy when
IBM will have to hit the very last nails.

I do not understand the way most of Groklaw readers reacted. This is a
great news! More comments from the SCO folks is a Good Thing (TM).
Can't you see SCO is just drowing itself with all the contradictory statements
they made?

SCO comments are highly appreciated.

We only need to be patient now.

NNP

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it me or does this sound more like a deafetest attitude?
Authored by: Mecha on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT
I have some spare time today, normally I just read tidbits here and there. So I
decided to see what Mr. McBride has said recently and did a quick check of GL to
see if it was mentioned. If it was, forgive me for the duplication of the
news.

on VARBusiness.com Darl had a question and answers section and noting from the
the reply section I did not think anyone from GL paid much attention to it. He
says things like:

"When you're inside here and looking up at the board and talking to the
legal guys, you figure, "Man, we're in great shape." But if you go out
to one of the Internet chat boards, according to them we haven't put any points
on the board yet. That's the good news about the courtroom: It is a zero sum
game. You get to the end and there are winners and losers. I think in the first
half, there was a lot of yelling and screaming about what the score was. At this
point, we're just ready to get to the end of the game and get a jury
conclusion."

"We believe the core issue is, how do we restore this business? A year ago,
we had a number of legal theories that we put in the form of a lawsuit. Now, a
year later, through a lot of discovery, we have been able to validate a lot of
those theories through evidence."

and for the defeatest attitude -

"Now, we're at a severe disadvantage"being a platform company and not
mentioned in the top two platforms that people want to go to. So, what it means
in the short term, we think we have an opportunity, a great opportunity, to go
out and service the 2 million-plus server-installed base that we have right now.
And we'll have, maybe, a little bit of upside with new customers. But until we
have that courtroom win, I think it's going to be hard to go out and
legitimately talk about a huge growth story around Unix because, let's face it,
Linux and UnixWare are competing for the same customer. And the mindshare in the
marketplace right now is clearly around Linux."

My question for Darl is this - If Everyone's mindshare in the marketplace is
with the "Free" OS of Linux, how do you think you could ever convince
them to PAY for your OS that wasn't doing to good before the semi-mainstream
adoption of Linux?

The website I got the quotes from is:
http://www.varbusiness.com/article/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SSSVE0PFJYPM0QS
NDBCCKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleId=26805608

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typical SCO exec line of thinking:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT

``Mr. Stowell has said that they would be flooded by contrary views if they allowed commenting. So what they will be offering will be * their* view. They call their site www.proSCO.net, for heaven's sake. The name alone fairly screams "One-Sided". And yet I would remind SCO that their CEO just said that a site that covers a legal issue should present both sides.''

SCO's spokesfolks are consistently inconsistent, aren't they.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT

``"We particularly chose that domain name thinking it would very uncomfortable for our detractors to type in 'prosco' for any reason," Stowell said.''

Yah. Sure. I'll be screaming ``Argh!! My fingers! They burn!'' shortly after keying in that domain name.

I'm betting that Darl and Blake were unable to sleep that night, being so giddy about the cleverness of their choice of domain name.

And about: ``We particularly...'' Shouldn't that be ``We specifically...''? Geez.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I've posted pro-sco comments
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Specifically, I don't think it would be that difficult to give SCO access to IBM's source code repository, although I don't think the information is relevant. I don't ever remember being 'attacked' or having my comments deleted though. People have responded to them with commentary and insights, but I don't consider disagreeing with someone to be attacking them. I think Darl and co. are a little thin-skinned.

If they are complaining because no one is posting "Linux infringes on SCO's copyrights, we should all buy their SCOSource license now," that is because SCO has offered zero proof or reason to buy the license.

When 99% of people think you are in the wrong, you shouldn't discount the possibility.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT
This makes me wish i had kept all those unix world and unix today mags. They
followed the Novel vs Sco (old sco) lawsuits. I even had a pile of old sco news
letters/magazines that they would put out. (sorry, i don't remember). It would
be interesting if you could get back issues or people could look through their
closits, attics ..
I threw all of mine out after a flood.

It would be great to spin the wayback machine and see what just was what. Here
judge take a look at these.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT
"A site that covers legal topics should include both sides. It shouldn't be
filled with rants and insults about a single company." Darl the Snarl

Groklaw is indeed covering both sides, since groklaw has not only the legal
documents from all parties but their press releases, their quotable quotes, etc.


The insults and rants are an unavoidable side effect of the analysis process, as
we put the SCOG legal filings and the quotes from the SCOG management team under
the microscope and discover their rather problematic relationship with the truth
in addition to their - shall we say, discontinuous chain of logic. Also bear in
mind that the groklaw community is made up of individuals with widly different
temperaments and people skills, that some suffer fools less gladly than others -
In fact, I will go so far as to state categorically that some of us (they know
who they are) don't suffer fools at all! As for my own personal people skills:
as a twenty year old, I studied judo for three years because my then twelve year
old little sister told me that women like to be swept off their feet. My CEO
loves my effectiveness in handling some of the firm's toughest projects, but
he'll turn white as a sheet if he sees me pick up the phone and answer it. My
own beautiful, sweet late mother simply gave up arguing with me: she would
simply whack me on the back of the head whenever I asked "Why?".

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Wisdom of Crowds & Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 02:10 PM EDT
There's a book out that explains why Groklaw is beating the socks off SCO's FUD. It's The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations.

The relevance to open source and Groklaw is obvious. Here's a short summary from Publisher's Weekly:

While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them."
The only way I know to get you to the book directly is a link that gets a kickback to me at no cost to you. This is it:

The Wisdom of Crowds

Given its relevance, I'm suprised I've not heard open source advocates quoting from it. Note this from the PW review. It's an almost perfect description of how Groklaw functions.

If four basic conditions are met, a crowd's "collective intelligence" will produce better outcomes than a small group of experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don't know all the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. "Wise crowds" need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in charge.

I'd love to see someone review it on Groklaw.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ's/Groklaw's impact is being understood
Authored by: ceolson on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT
From an article in SiliconValley.Com:
"McBride spotted panning for bad analogies: Apparently Darl McBride.com
hasn't been getting much traffic lately, because SCO is establishing another Web
site to spread the "truth" about its campaign against open source.
Prosco.net, will debut Nov. 1, and act as a counterpoint to Groklaw, a site
whose meticulous and scathing critiques of SCO's legal shenanigans have probably
done more to undermine SCO's claim that Linux violates its intellectual property
than all of IBM and Novell's attorneys put together."

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/9918598.
htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anywhere-but-here MO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT
SCO is going to do it again with their upcoming ProSCO.net

"Anywhere but here..."

ProSCO.net is where they are free to fabricate their side of the story any which
way they like. Why? No comments will be allowed to counterpoint their story.

"Anywhere but here..."

Which explained why they didn't response to PJ even though they said they
would.

"Anywhere but here..."

And that is SCO's MO.





[ Reply to This | # ]

Their side??
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT
They wanna use a website to tell their side???

Hey. Bet their database don't crash! (unless it's MSQL...)
-Andy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hi Darl!
Authored by: Mecha on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 03:13 PM EDT
Glad you could stop by!

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT
"...POSTS HERE ARE DELETED AND NOT JUST THE ONES WITH SWEARING/THREATS/ETC.
YOU KNOW YOU DO IT/HAVE DONE IT. OTHERS KNOW YOU DO/HAVE. BE DIFFERENT, DONT LIE
ABOUT IT OR DONT DO IT..."

Of course they are deleted. Why wouldn't they be deleted?

Any post that doesn't comply with the posting policy is subject to deletion - as
well it should be.

One of the nice things about owning your own house is you get to throw out
anyone you've invited in that violates your rules. PJ is justified in all that
she has done.

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT
DON'T SHOUT!

It makes you look like more of an ijanamit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing into Darl's hands
Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Dear PJ,

Before now, you were great. Now, you're really bad. Please stop being bad!

Sincerely,
Anonymous Troll

---
Forty-two: the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Oloryn on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 03:57 PM EDT
'I've seen instances where someone posted a positive comment about SCO, and they were either viciously attacked or the comment was removed.'

Why do I get the impression that Darl is interpreting disagreement as vicious attack?

More seriously, anyone else notice that Darl isn't objecting that what's on Groklaw isn't true, he's merely objecting that it's "one-sided"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT
From the August 3rd Var Business interview with Darl McBride:

"McBride: When we filed the lawsuit, a lot of people came out and said SCO
was going out of business and so they filed the lawsuit. They were right. The
bottom line was that SCO had been on a steady decline and was just a few
quarters away from not being around."

Sounds like the lawsuit was an act of desperation to stay in business for a
while longer.

Left unspoken I suspect, is that doing so meant getting in bed with a certain
Redmond company that has it's own agenda against Linux and FOSS because only
that company was willing to funnel the tens of millions of dollars to SCO that
they needed to prosecute this attack against what they both view as their mutual
nemesis.

In the end, both companies will lose. SCO it's business and it's managers',
quite possibly, their freedom and Microsoft, even more of their credibility if
not criminal and/or civil anti-trust action.

After the election, certain American federal agencies will likely undertake
greater scrutiny of the publicly traded corporations involved...

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps Groklaw should mirror ProsCo
Authored by: StLawrence on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 04:35 PM EDT
PJ, I think you should consider offering to mirror ProsCo's site. I doubt if
any of SCO's arguments will hold up to scrutiny, but let's make it easy
for them to make their arguments, and easy for them to be scrutinized!

Offering to mirror their site will also completely expose their claim that
GroklawIsOnlyInterestedInPresentingOneSideOfTheArgument as the lie
that it is. It will also nearly eliminate any PR value that SCO might try
to leverage in the event that any stupid Script Kiddies try to harrass SCO
by taking down their site.

And finally, anthing that SCO says can be used against them, and quickly is.
Whatever we can do to help them dig their own hole deeper would be a
Good Thing...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are these people really THIS dim?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 05:01 PM EDT
"We particularly chose that domain name thinking it would very
uncomfortable for our detractors to type in 'prosco' for any reason,"
Stowell said.

Hey, we don't have trouble typing in PROSCO, the trouble is that prosco-inc is a
legitimate firm completely unrelated to SCO. Your name choice will definitely
make a bad impact on them. If Microsoft made a fuss about MikeRoweSoft, then
your name choice is just as bad.
So this name choice is just another fiasco...

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT
Congratulations on being a "festering thorn" in SCO's side.
"In the 17 months SCO Group has waged its multiple-lawsuit war over its
alleged rights to Linux, Groklaw has been the festering thorn in the Utah
software company's side."

AGW

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT
I think this this site is a decoy site for hackers
who want to take down SCO.

Hacker Suckers

Nice job PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 06:25 PM EDT
if they only want the legal docs, they can simply go to Frank Sorenson's site...

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT
Evidently they dont have much faith or they know whats coming in the near
future.

accordint to the whois lookup the domain is only registered from 4-oct-04
to 4-oct-05

Where's the faith?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daryl's words
Authored by: snakebitehurts on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 07:31 PM EDT
This is from daryl.com

I've changed a few things. If the shoe fits....

Change anything in parentheses to -SCO- and you have a clear pcture what we want
from Daryl
********************************
At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors
have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to (Open
Source) -SCO- Unix. This is just basic due diligence that governs every other
part of corporate dealings. Rather than defend the “don’t ask, don’t tell”
(Linux) -SCO- intellectual property policy that caused the SCO v.IBM case, the
(Open Source) -SCO- community should focus on customers’ needs. The (Open
Source) -SCO- community should assure that (Open Source) -SCO- software has a
solid intellectual property foundation that can give confidence to end users. I
respectfully suggest to (Open Source) -SCO- developers that this is a far better
use of your collective resources and abilities than to defend and justify flawed
intellectual property policies that are out of sync with the needs of enterprise
computing customers.
*******************************
Sorry folks, I still use Word, and can't get bold and strikethrough to work
here. Hope it makes sense

[ Reply to This | # ]

The answer to all of your worries regarding deletion of comments
Authored by: Nivuahc on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:22 PM EDT
Had one or more of your posts deleted at Groklaw?

Well here is a simple 2-step process that is guaranteed to get you through it all:

Step 1> Understand that you are not necessarily the superior beacon of knowledge that you sometimes think that you are. Trust me, everyone here at Groklaw has not been waiting their entire lives to read the pearls of wisdom you tried to post.

Step 2> Get over it.

I've had posts deleted where I didn't use profanity, I didn't attack anyone personally, and I didn't take an anti-Linux stance. Why were they deleted?

Who cares?

I know I don't and they were my posts.

What I do care about is my ability to enjoy my time here. I actually tried to read through all of the posts on this story because I had a feeling that PJ was going to let all of them (excluding profanity, I imagine) stay so that all of the people whining about moderation could see exactly what this site would turn into without it.

Evidently it turned into a ton of posts about people whining about having a post of theirs deleted at one time or another.

I don't always agree with PJ but I'd be hard pressed to think of someone more deserving of my honor, my understanding and my patience.

She's done one thing that I haven't really seen anyone mention (well, maybe in so many words) that may be the most important thing of all.

She got an entire community involved in a fight to save ourselves.

If it weren't for PJ and Groklaw, the majority of you would still be sitting at home saying things like "Man, somebody ought to do something about that SCO and all of their lies".

Well, guess what? Someone is.

At tremendous personal cost.

Free of charge.

Try to appreciate it.

---
My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand. It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is prosco.com for sale?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 10:35 PM EDT
Has anyone else noticed that <a
href=http://www.prosco.com>prosco.com</a> seems to be for sale?

[ Reply to This | # ]

New docs on PACER
Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 11:00 PM EDT
Numbers 321 and 322 -- SCO asks leave to file a third amended complaint WRT IBM.

---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: ikocher on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT
Again me wondering ...

Can PJ publish the logs of her servers? I mean if she publishes the logs, IP
address included, one can see if an IP from certain company somewhere accessed
the site, and what accesed... I know privacy issues and that... but I really
don't mind the IPs from where I have accesed GL to be published, only the IPs,
no usernames linked to them, privacy reasons :)

Maybe we can see this from the scientific point of view... and investigation to
know GL users habits!


Ivan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whats in the name "Prosco"? Theatre lighting supplies?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 03:22 AM EDT
I notice that they say the reason for their domain name is to make it
uncomfortable for Pro-Linuxers to type.

I don't see a problem with that - it sounds too similar to a theatre lighting
supplier to me - not quite ROSCO, or Proscenium. I wonder if there ever was a
theatre supplier called Prosco.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 10:38 AM EDT
Stowell says it would be hard for a detractor to type prosco and they chose it
for that reason. Who has to type it? Solutions:
1) Copy paste it. No typing involved
2) Click a link. No Typing involved
3) Set up a link to the website such as http://go.to/SCOFUD

I personally like #3 best:-p

-sil (searching in the dark for a forgotten pass)

[ Reply to This | # ]

ProSCO.net might be a trap
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 03:23 PM EDT
Remember when SCO vs. IBM started and SCO got all the PR they wanted? After a
short time there where these alleged DDOS-attacks to their servers (although
that has never been confirmed). SCO was fast to blame these attacks on
Linux-users, OSS-advocates and so on.

Now they set up ProSCO.net, and i am rather sure we will hear very shortly about
DDOS-attacks to that new site. And SCO will claim that these attacks are
initiated and performed by Groklaw members and readers. SCO might even go so far
as to demand the shutdown of Groklaw, claiming that the attacks are coordinated
here.

They will not stop. There is no end to how low they will go just to keep their
"thing" running for just a little bit longer. Heed my warning and
prepare for that case, it might come as early as November the second (which
would be a good day because everybody will be in election-fever).

Sometimes SCO reminds me of certain episodes of Star Trek. You have some kind of
time-paradoxon and in the end a "reset-button" is pressed to bring
everything back to normal. SCO is on the same track. If they loose they will
loose everything, so they dont have to care about playing nasty and using all
the dirty tricks in the book.

I just keep asking myself: what will be on "the day after"? Will Darl
be wearing a mustache, trying to convince a south-american customs-officer that
he only has $23,48 in his pockets? Will Blake be applying for a job as
dogcatcher, so he can work of all the debt? Will Canopy declare they never even
knew how these guys where?

Its like waiting for Santa...

Linux_Inside

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Terms
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 07:59 PM EDT
If you post my response without adding your own spin and twisting my words, I
will send you my response to your questions.

Darl

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • My Terms - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:04 AM EDT
More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:33 AM EDT
"I've seen instances where someone posted a positive comment about SCO, and
they were either viciously attacked or the comment was removed." Darl the
Snarl

"SCO has tried to post comments on the site as well, but McBride said they
are frequently not accepted and do not appear in the discussions."

(1) Those comments that don't follow the ground rules set by PJ get dumped to
the null device. The fact that door to the home is open does not entitle anyone
to back his garbage truck into it, and trolls certainly don't pay attention to
any ground rules.

(2) Anyone who makes dumb, wilfully ignorant and dishonest comments is taking
his chances with every member of the groklaw community - and the quality control
that comes back to the original poster can and most likely will be extremely
rough and onpoint.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:52 AM EDT
"A site that covers legal topics should include both sides. It shouldn't be
filled with rants and insults about a single company [SCOG]." Darl the
Snarl

To paraphrase Darl the Snarl when he stated that he does not report to the Open
Source community: the groklaw community does not report to SCOG, and SCOG
certainly has no business telling PJ how to run groklaw. Period. And if Darl the
Snarl does not like the way groklaw is performing its mission, tough.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 12:14 AM EDT
anyone wants to regiter:
http://www.pros-cow.net

???
it's for the Pro's Cow in SCO.
-wawan-
wsetiawan@gmx.de

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Battle Cry
Authored by: JAP on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:37 AM EDT
SCO's New Battle Cry - Whine and Snivel... Whine and Snivel...
(by crouse, http://usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=38798#38798)

[ Reply to This | # ]

More SCO FUD About Groklaw and the AntiFUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:15 AM EDT
What I think is funny is that sco were silly enough not to buy out prosco.com as
well as prosco.org.

Both have now been cybersquatted. I for one am mystified as to this fairly large
oversite.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.11 seconds