|
|
| What We Might Expect From SCO's New Website and Groklaw |
 |
|
Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 08:44 PM EST
|
First a little history, to set the stage. Here is the TeamSCO Partner Program newsletter from Friday, March 7, 2003, sent out at 6:01 AM. It announced the lawsuit, which was filed the day before, and interestingly it also included a link to a PDF of their filing, which they made available on their website, in addition to repeating their press release of that same day. Here also is the original SCO complaint filed in the local Utah court on March 6, 2003, at 2:17 PM to be exact, as you can see from the date stamp on the filing, back when they were still calling themselves Caldera. SCO has never bothered, that I have been able to find, to put this filed, dated version on their website, nor is it on the public Pacer. What SCO offered was an undated, unsigned copy and Pacer doesn't seem to have it at all. But this PDF shows the cover sheet filed with the court and the date and signature on the last page. A volunteer picked it up.
The Summons is also dated March 6, 2003, and while there is no certificate of service, they list a mailing address for a local IBM office in Salt Lake City as the recipient of the Summons: TO DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
C/o CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
[address]
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 The letter to IBM telling them they had 100 days before the AIX license would be "terminated" also is dated March 6, even though the notice, under the original license agreement, gave IBM 100 days to fix whatever breach SCO might be claiming. Well, they just skipped that part. Normally, in my experience, when you have wording like that in a contract, you send the notice of breach, let the 100 days run, and then you sue if the problem isn't remedied first. Since there is no fax number or email listed on the Summons or the Complaint, SCO appears to have mailed it to IBM, via this CT company in Salt Lake City. So, no matter how you slice it, I think that probably means that all SCO partners and the press received the filing before IBM did. They may have grabbed it quick off of SCO's website when the news broke. An Infoworld article dated March 7 shows that IBM said they hadn't had time to read it thoroughly yet: "The company added that it has been 'openly supporting Linux and open standards for several years and neither SCO nor any of its predecessors ever expressed these concerns to us.'. . .
"SCO also said it sent a letter to IBM demanding that it cease its allegedly anti-competitive practices. If IBM doesn't meet its demands within 100 days of receiving the letter, SCO said it has a right to revoke IBM's license for the AIX Unix operating system.
"However, IBM said Friday that SCO never approached it to raise this complaint and did not inform the company in advance that it was filing a lawsuit." This was back when SCO was pretending that IBM was a Utah entity, trying to stay in local Utah courts, but if this is what happened, it does highlight how charmingly SCO has conducted itself from day one. Is this all about the media, and from the beginning? The SCO page where they already list some court filings says: "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." Yes, they are publicly available documents. As it happens, I know how to get documents from a court, and I shared that knowledge. Sharing knowledge is good for you, because you get to benefit when others use that knowledge and share back with you. Groklaw has almost 8,000 members currently. Some live in Utah, some in Nevada, some in Delaware, and some in Michigan. So there's always been someone willing to get the documents in person. I don't even have to arrange it. People often just do it, on their own initiative. Some regularly stop by the court, just to see if there is anything new. I put out a public call for Michigan volunteers once, when the DaimlerChysler case first surfaced, and within a blink of an eye, I had 5 offers. Recently, when a volunteer picked up a copy of a paper court filing in the IBM case, the court reporters told him that his copy was the first off the printer following their proofreading. And another reported that when he personally picked up a filing, he noticed that a copy for Snell & Wilmer, one of the firms representing IBM, was still waiting to be picked up. It pays to be part of a large community, you know. Utah is one of the most progressive states as far as electronic filings are concerned, and they also make all the electronically filed documents, except those that are sealed, easily available to the public, and if you know how to use a computer, there you are. It's not as fast as sneakernet though. Nothing beats sneakernet. You might like to know that it is being reported that the url for SCO's new website in competition with Groklaw has been renamed. It is now scoinfo.com, a domain name they registered on October 28. I guess they decided to take my advice. I wrote that prosco.net reeked of bias. Lots of merriment over the name happened elsewhere, too. Actually, there is no way for them not to be biased. They are a party to the lawsuit, after all. I believe that likely means they have a pony in this race that they are rooting for, so whatever they put up there, it will be with that as the goal. A little Groksmear can be expected too, I suppose, or should I say a little more, and judging from the above, maybe a few slick moves in addition to the astroturfing I believe I have already been observing. Just consider the source. Anyway, if they need any more PR advice, after the website gets up and running, I am sure I'll think of something to help them improve. I wanted to also mention that I pulled all the contracts and documents like copyright registrations and put them in one place on the Legal Docs page, in roughly alphabetical order. Just click on the link near the top under the heading "Other Documents" that says Contracts and Documents. I was finding it hard to locate things, so I figured you might be too. If you see any I missed, let me know, please, so I can add them to the list. Also, we are preparing a new service on Groklaw. It's still being coded and has been in preparation for a couple of months, and we hope to have it ready fairly soon. We'll be having daily links to legal and related IT news stories that I believe you will find interesting. It's a feature I've wanted to do for a long time, because I want to share with you the wonderful links people send me from all over the world that I don't have time to write about. We have volunteers in place, who have agreed to be responsible for that feature, and I'll give you more details later.
*****************************
From: "TeamSCO Partner Program"
To: [redacted]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:01 AM
Subject: Important SCO Announcement... Please Read
Dear [redacted],
In an effort to keep you informed of SCO activities, please read the
following SCO Press Release available at
http://www.sco.com/company/presskit.
SCO FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST IBM
SCO files billion dollar lawsuit for misappropriation of trade secrets,
tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract
LINDON, Utah-March 7, 2003-The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the
owner of the UNIX operating system, announced today that it has filed legal
action against IBM (NYSE:IBM) in the State Court of Utah, for
misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition
and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM made concentrated
efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX
on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business.
IBM originally entered into their UNIX license agreement with AT&T in
February 1985 in order to produce the AIX operating system. These agreements
require that the UNIX software code be held in confidence, and prohibit
unauthorized distribution or transfer.
In 1995, SCO purchased the rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare that
had been originally owned by AT&T. This included source code, source
documentation, software development contracts, licenses and other
intellectual property that pertained to UNIX-related business. SCO became
the successor in interest to the UNIX software licenses originally licensed
by AT&T Bell Laboratories to all UNIX distributors, including HP, IBM,
Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, and many others.
As a result of IBM's unfair competition and the marketplace injury
sustained by SCO, SCO is requesting damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, but no less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through
and after the time of trial.
SCO is also demanding that IBM cease these anti-competitive practices
based on specific requirements sent in a notification letter to IBM. If
these requirements are not met, SCO will have the authority to revoke IBM's
AIX license 100 days following the receipt of SCO's letter.
SCO's letter and complaint have been filed by the law firm of Boies,
Schiller and Flexner. SCO announced in January that the law firm had been
retained to research and investigate possible violations of SCO's
intellectual property.
"SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system,"
said Darl McBride, president and CEO, SCO. "It is clear from our stand point
that we have an extremely compelling case against IBM. SCO has more than
30,000 contracts with UNIX licensees and upholding these contracts is as
important today as the day they were signed."
A copy of SCO's complaint is on file with the State Court of Utah and can
also be found at http://www.sco.com/scosource.
Teleconference
SCO has scheduled a teleconference regarding this announcement for 11:00
a.m. Eastern time on March 7, 2003. Press and analysts who are interested in
participating in this announcement should call:
[redacted]
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group (NASDAQ: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82
countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions.
Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than
16,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable
localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more
information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com.
SCO, SCOsource, UnixWare and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or
registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S. and other
countries. UNIX, used under an exclusive license, is a registered trademark
of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a
registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are
or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of,
their respective owners.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST |
| N/T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:02 PM EST |
| I think I like the new Groklaw and the new PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST |
" reaked " should be "reeked"
"...the pro-sco name reeked of
bias."Interesting, they filed it as Caldera, eh? ---
"When we speak
of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M.
Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:20 PM EST |
SCOINFO is an anagram of "IF SO CON"
Talk about your Freudian slips![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOINFO is an anagram of 'IF SO CON' - Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:35 PM EST
- SCOINFO is an anagram of 'IF SO CON' - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST
- SCOinfomercial? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:49 PM EST
- SCOINFO is an anagram of 'IF SO CON' - Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 11:24 PM EST
- It slices it dices it fuds it lies. its Fud-O-matic by Sco - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:24 AM EST
- SCOINFO -> Freudian -> prosco.info - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:42 AM EST
- SCOINFO is an anagram of 'IF SO CON' - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST
- SCOINFO is an anagram of 'IF SO CON' - Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST
- S Coin Fone T? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST
- SCOINFO is an anagram of 'IF SO CON' - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST
- ANTICIPATING is an anagram of .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST
- Rhymes with... - Authored by: feep on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST
- Freudian slip? Isn't that a little much? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: DebianUser on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST |
I distinctly remember reading this on Slashdot / Newsforge / LinuxToday,
it seems so long ago now. This must be the shot that caused a boom in law
practice (amateur and professional). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:27 PM EST |
"It is now scoinfo.com, a domain name they registered on October 28. I
guess they [SCOG] decided to take my advice. I wrote that prosco.net reaked of
bias. Lots of merriment over the name happened elsewhere, too. Actually, there
is no way for them not to be biased" PJ
groklaw is a voice of the Open Source community = that's our viewpoint and
that's our bais, if you will. "scoinfo" implies an objectivity and a
neutrality that are simply not there. "prosco" was a little more
honest as a name.
I don't think it is either our responsibility, our call or our interest to tell
SCOG how to improve: it is certainly our responsibility, call and interest to
loot the SCOG website of any info that's valuable to our analysis and research
effort, though. We will continue to have to rely on our efforts to get the legal
pleadings we have to work with, because the possibility is always thre that SCOG
will supppress inconvenient and embarassing details. And if SCOG does it, we
should underline the parts that SCOG left out: it's news, after all.
SCOG's website will never hold a candle to groklaw, because SCOG's new website
will be at best a mere repository of legal filings, and I fully expect that it
wil be an incomplete one at that: I don't know to what extent groklaw's analysis
helped shape IBM's legal strategy, but the declarations of Frasure, Williams,
etc. are telling. groklaw's analysis also helped to drive groklaw's research,
which debunked a number of SCOG's claims of facts within hours of SCOG's filing
them. And if you don't think that IBM's legal strategy is not driving SCOG's
legal strategy, then you were born yesterday. I expect that SCOG will stick to
what it does best: FUD. By the same token, we should stick to what we do best:
anti-FUD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:34 PM EST |
I love Groklaw. My only suggestion, which I made once before is for a calendar
of (the known) upcoming events - scheduled court dates (required dates & SCO
promises), all in one place to keep track.
The RH, Novell, & IBM Timelines tell us what has gone before, but don't,
unless I'm missing it, tell us what to look for next, and when. Obviously,
given the history of requests for delays and broken promises, such a calendar
would be "dynamic" at best, but still helpful.
Much Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:39 PM EST |
The only lessons I am interested in teaching SCOG are object lessons. However,
these lessons are purely a side show to our analysis and research effort, which
is aimed at getting at the truth and letting out the truth, thus destroying both
SCOG and its FUD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:41 PM EST |
| Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A Little gem from the Inq. - Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:45 PM EST
- Licensing 6? - Authored by: Jude on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Intel? - Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST
- Intel? - Authored by: Jude on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:38 PM EST
- Intel? - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST
- Intel? - Authored by: mpellatt on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:09 AM EST
- Intel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:36 AM EST
- Inquirer is WRONG! Intel using XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:31 AM EST
- Great news, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST
- OT Here. - Authored by: tbogart on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST
- Follow the bouncing Ballmer - Authored by: ujay on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:25 AM EST
- Maureen O'Gara Shill Running - Authored by: ff5166 on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:18 AM EST
- Request on new features - Authored by: Ninthwave on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:19 AM EST
- SCO sells first Linux licences in UK - Authored by: bbaston on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST
- Ingres r3 open source database ships for Linux, Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST
- OT: Anonymous posts - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- Interesting insight. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST
- Naw - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST
- Who? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST
- OT: Anonymous posts - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:29 PM EST
- Good luck - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST
- Whats Andrew Tannenbaum up to? - Authored by: MplsBrian on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- OT - Look who surfaced. - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST
- Interesting - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:39 PM EST
- TMC shoots foot -- again -- over .NET 'study' - Authored by: bbaston on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST
- OT: O'Reilly book on Open Source Licenses - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
- OSS community - lack of achievement - Authored by: clark_kent on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Bagle noshing on MS Firewall - Authored by: ujay on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:40 PM EST
- This really burns my britches - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:56 PM EST
- Solaris to go Open Source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Cnet says Linux too hard just use sp2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST
- ZDNet UK has this on Microsoft v Truth on IP indemnification - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:57 PM EST
- Congratulations to SCO - Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST
- shares outstanding - Authored by: jim Reiter on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST
- OT Here. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:04 PM EST
- The register has "the wave of the future" Foss or rental or both - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:24 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: StLawrence on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 09:43 PM EST |
My guess is, SCO's new website will never appear. It's easy to
trumpet to the media that Groklaw is one-sided, and that a new
website showing the other side of the coin is the answer.
But when one tries to create such a flip-side website, one quickly
discovers that the new site doesn't have a horde of volunteers to
dig up the facts. The new site doesn't have an army of retired
attorneys who understand things as SCO seems to. And, as I'm
sure SCO has realized by now, the new site doesn't have any facts
to support any of their ever-shifting theories. Each time they trot
out a new accusation it is quickly decimated. A new counter-website
will simply give Groklaw an easy single place to go to get targets to
shred to pieces.
I hope their website really does show up -- it'll help keep things
fun and interesting. But I doubt it'll ever happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: radix2 on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST |
I would suggest that along with very selective legal documents, there will be a
"debunking" area where they will link to articles on groklaw and other
commentary sites and provide *their* "unbiased" analysis of our
analysis.
Because no comments will be allowed on their site, we will then have the
pleasure of deFUDing their responses. I look forward to that bit :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:31 PM EST |
Why isn't SCO obligated to refer to oldSCO as "predecessor in
interest" as Novell, Inc?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dan_d on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:44 PM EST |
SCO has registered scoinfo.[com|org|net]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST |
I think that probably means that all SCO partners and the press received the
filing before IBM did.
Is this a sharp poke in the ribs to one
MOG or am I reading to much into this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST |
If understand Blake Stowell's comments to the press correctly, then the purpose
of the new SCO site will be to provide the public with access to the legal
filings without Groklaw comments.
1. Why is this any different from www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit which already exists?
(I do realize thsi page doesn't seem to include all filings, but surely the
solution would be to update it)
2. Why would SCO care in any case whether the public has access at all? What
specific reason is there that they would care what your typical Joe Schmoo
thinks of the case?
Surely what matters is what Judge Kimball or Magistrate Judge Wells thinks of
the filings?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST |
They have given up on that.
They have set their sights a little lower; noooo lower; lower still.
They are going to beat Groklaw before they go bankrupt.
Can they even do that?
Go PJ go.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:54 AM EST |
<i>It is now scoinfo.com, a domain name they registered on October 28. I
guess they decided to take my advice. I wrote that prosco.net reeked of
bias.</i>
Maybe the noticed that prosco.com was a porn site, and were worried people might
mistype the url.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:15 AM EST |
I think a section that should be added to groklaw would be a "point
summary" for each story.
Something that PJ or another wise sort adds after a story has received it's
majority of comments and containing any points of interest or descrepancies that
may be useful to IBM/Novell/RH/AZ/DC.
The community participation at groklaw is fantastic, but sometimes the running
commentary hides facts that might be helpful to the guys we want to win.
In other words, it would be great if lawyers for IBM and the other pro OSS
companies could see at a glance any points of interest brought up by posters
without having to wade though 400 posts that essentially say "SCO
sucks" in many different ways. At the very least, it would save them some
money in time/hours charged. :-)
There have been many many comments made since this site started that have really
raised points that would be of interest to the relevant parties, but we never
know if they actually found them because of the massive amount of comment
traffic.
All it would need to be, is a sub category under each story called "points
of interest raised" or something to that effect.
Anyway, onto the point of this post, SCO sucks ! :-)
Regards
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:04 AM EST |
Pushing the 'we bought Unix in 1996' line even then I
notice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: myxiplx on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:10 AM EST |
Was anyone else having flashbacks of Dr Evil from Austin Powers reading that?
"I demand the sum... OF 1 BILLION DOLLARS... Mwahahaha!!!"
Surely it's only a matter of time now before we see Darl with the fluffy white
cat. :-D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:52 AM EST |
So, who's taking bets on when SCOINFO goes live? Given their penchant for the
last minute, my money's on number 5:
1) 9am Utah time
2) noon
3) 4:59 PM
4) 11:59 PM
5) Didn't you listen? We said "on or *at least not before* Nov 1"
By the way, when asked about another pending announcement, Darl replied,
"No, I still haven't signed the 30 mil cap on legal fees we announced
months ago. I wanted to, but my pen is in my other suit. And that suit is at
the drycleaners. In Brazil. And I can't afford to buy another pen because
those lawyers are bleeding us dry, dontcha know! If only there was some way of
capping those lawyers fees!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:02 AM EST |
OK, I give up. Why does Darl need a new web site when he's already got
www.sco.com complete with a press area?
What grand advantage does a new site have?
Is there some legal requirement to seperate the site from SCOv2 (concidering the
Judges suggestion that Darl keep quiet.) Will the site editor be independent of
SCOv2? Will the site editor be one of the usual suspects (Enderle, O'Gara?)
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:14 AM EST |
|
"SCO is supposed to launch its counter-Groklaw site on Monday so people can
have access to all the court filings in the great SCO v IBM suit et al absent
Groklaw's usual anti-SCO vitriol," writes Maureen O'Gara, who also wonders "how
Groklaw manages to get the filings faster than it, a party to the suit, does.
Makes one wonder who's pulling the strings for the blog."
(You can
find the article via Google News- I'm not
going to link to it.)
There you are. Groklaw must be a front for IBM
because there is no way a contributer could walk to the court and obtain a
photocopy of a document, scan it and post it without the support of a
multi-billion dollar company!
For the humor impaired that's a
joke.
Does anybody know where I can get a job writing garbage about
something I don't understand? I don't mind being paid with bundles of used
notes in a paper bag or even share options (so long as the share price is
supported until I sell out.)
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:40 AM EST |
GrokLaw has a purpose with regards to the SCO cases; to allow people to
collaborate and correct misleading history information, and to allow public
participation in legal analysis of the case.
ProSCO on the other hand, only seems to want to exist because GrokLaw does;
without user input and more crucially, user assistance, it's going to rely on
and drain SCO resources to maintain it. Groklaw hopefully sometimes provides the
defendants of SCOs lawsuits with useful assistance, and also provides IT
managers out there to read an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the
claims.
In short, Groklaw provides synergy to SCO's opponents; ProSCO will split their
efforts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ricketts30 on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:08 AM EST |
Here is some info
Registrant: The SCO
Group
Domain Name: SCOINFO.COM
Created on:
28-OCT-04
Expires on: 28-OCT-05
Last Updated on:
28-OCT-04
Why only 1 year?
- Perhaps they do not
expect to exist in 2 years time?
- Perhaps they could not afford to pay
for more than 1 year? (1 yr = $14.95) (2 yrs = $27.95)
- Perhaps
they do not expect the trial to last too much longer?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jeff on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:22 AM EST |
Doesn't SCO need to be mindful of what they put on their information website,
since it could be used against them by IBM or Redhat? I wonder what their
lawyers think of this new website?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:01 AM EST |
I was looking through the Project Monterey Agreement again and I noticed
something that I do not believe has been brought up before in conjunction with
TSG's claim that IBM could not use the Monterey code in AIX-5L for the PPC. I
think that the highlighted section below shows that both parties had the
foresight to see that the IA-32, IA-64 software products, and Intel hardware was
not the only intended purpose for this code. I believe after reading the
contract that the use of the code for IA-32 and IA-64 was just a minumum of what
they had to do with the code to keep up either end of the contract.
13.0 FREEDOM TO MARKET
Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, both parties
shall have full freedom and flexibility in the
design and implementation
of its marketing programs for any Deliverables,
including, without
limitation, the decision of whether to market or
discontinue marketing
any particular Deliverable, the selection of marketing
channels, the
timing and sequence of announcements and roll-out programs,
the
determination of
pricing strategy, the specification of license terms,
and the offering
of such Deliverables in connection with or as part of other
software
products an systems and with any computer hardware equipment.
Nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed as an obligation, guarantee
or
commitment by either party that any Deliverable shall be announced
or
marketed, or that any marketing effort will be productive of any level
of
sales. The parties may agree to pursue specific marketing activities
as outlined
in a Marketing Supplement executed by authorized
representatives of each party
and attached to this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, IBM agrees to
include the IA-32 Product
in the IBM marketing programs outlined in Attachment A
for a minimum
period of one year from the Effective Date of the Agreement. IBM
will
identify an IBM contact responsible for the marketing programs outlined
in
Attachment A. The scope and contributed resources and expenditures
for such IBM
marketing programs shall be at IBM's sole discretion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:25 AM EST |
It's not a good idea to drag an unrelated company into your battles: There is a
company called Prosco :
http://www.prosco-inc.com/
PROSCO Inc. is a company offering products and services in the fields of
mechanical, electromechanical, automation design, as well as special repair,
modification, and field service of existing industrial equipment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Paul Shirley on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:34 AM EST |
| Is this all about the media, and from the beginning?
Pretty much what
I've thought from the beginning. We knew they'd skipped the AIX termination
notice period right from the start but I hadn't realised they also gave IBM no
time to respond before hitting the press.
The mechanics of extortion are that
you make it less costly to hand over the cash than fight, SCOG seem to have
broken that rule right at the start.
I'll guess they had to skip the 100 days
notice period because SCOSource was ready to go and needed immediate support.
IBM paying any token amount of royalties would have done the job but IBM wasn't
playing along. Because Darl has a history of suing and winning out of court he
probably can't conceive of a company fighting to the bitter end, it makes no
business sense to him. IBM place a more realistic value on their
reputation.
And I'm still convinced they're fighting on not to win, not even
to get to court but simply to delay personal penalties for a few more months.
Cornered rats... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Enron - Authored by: ak on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST |
MS finally admits Linux is a competitor.
Sample:
"“This is the
greatest form of flattery to all of us - coming from none other than our
fiercest competitor. He's done the open source industry a favor, by
inadvertently drawing attention to the very software his company competes
against.”
Link
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:29 AM EST |
I'm showing my ignorance about domain name mechanics here, but if the SCO site
goes live right now, won't there still be a delay while the address trickles
down? i.e. even if it goes live today, it won't be immediately available
globally for hours/days?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST |
" Here also is the original SCO complaint filed in the local Utah court on
March 6, 2003, at 2:17 PM to be exact, as you can see from the date stamp on the
filing, back when they were still calling themselves Caldera. SCO has never
bothered, that I have been able to find, to put this filed, dated version on
their website, nor is it on the public Pacer. What SCO offered was an undated,
unsigned copy and Pacer doesn't seem to have it at all. But this PDF shows the
cover sheet filed with the court and the date and signature on the last page. A
volunteer picked it up."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rfillmore on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:14 AM EST |
I noticed two things when I read (re-read) the letter SCO put out
1) They don't mention owning the copyrights. As significant as that is, you
would think they would have.
2) They refer to an scosource section of thier web site. I thought they created
scosource AFTER many many request from thier customers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:30 AM EST |
What if this whole thing with new SCO sites was just an attempt to distract
attention from something else? What would that something else be?
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST |
| I don't know if it's a good idea to bring this all up again, but it seem that Mr
Merkey has resurfaced, and is now threatening to sue
Forums.merkey.net for daring to have a thread with his name in it on their site
(*warning - Mr Merkey's letter contains bad language!*).
There is a
Slashdot story with more links on it as well.
He's
basically playing the old 'anything you say about me is race hatred because i'm
an indian' card.
Personally i think he's just after attention again, and
normally wouldn't draw attention to him, but since he's spreading more fud i
think it needs to at least be pointed out that he's still out
there.
Greebo ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dev/elf on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:33 AM EST |
For curiosity, I tried to order their $699 Linux IP license. However, when
filling in the form I noticed that (being from Germany) I am not able to
purchase their IP -- the country selection menu simply ignores Germany (for good
reason).
Too bad, I was really willing to accept the fight with them and/or my credit
card company....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:43 AM EST |
I must complement SCO on one of the most successful public web site launchings
in recent history (Before the fact ;)). All thanks to Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST |
| I expect it to be late non-factual unplugged when the parent
company is bankrupted by unfounded lawsuits [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST |
<..is now scoinfo.com, a domain name they registered on October 28. I guess
they decided to take my advice.>
'Fraid not PJ: someone registered prosco.com and put it up for sale. Expect a
new lawsuit at any moment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:15 PM EST |
While quoting letters from scox, it may be a good idea to introduce a few typos.
It is possible for companies to place typos in these letters to track who is
leaking information.
If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft does this. It shouldnt be too hard to place
reasonable doubt in tracking methods. Also looking at letters from two sources
could help identify fingerprints.
<redacted> is not enough.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:23 PM EST |
It looks like SCOX has found a new, albeit temporary, home in the two dollar
range and, except for the increasingly unlikely possibility of brief excursions
above the $3.00 mark, the overall trend should continue lower in the weeks
between now and Thansgiving Day.
Is it too much to ask for $1.00/share by Christmas do you think? What a nice
Christmas gift that would be...
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 12:52 PM EST |
Nothing much, just this little blurb.
*************************
SCO is anticipating that it will use this site as the future home for all
information relating to SCO's pending lawsuits and related issues. For current
information about SCO's suit against IBM, please visit www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit,
and about SCO's suit against Novell, please visit www.sco.com/novell.
**************************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iZm on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:09 PM EST |
Strange....
I just tried www.scoinfo.com and was told that it didn't exist so, I tried
www.scoinfo.net and that works but, the banner announces that you are on
www.scoinfo.com
There are some very confused people at SCO.
---
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST |
He apparently gave up his site :)
Either voluntarily or involuntarily, but scoinfo.org is the same as
scoinfo.com/net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stef70 on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST |
a 'telnet 216.250.128.211 80' tell me:
Apache/2.0.52 (Win32) mod_jk2/2.0.4 Server at dhcp5-99.ut.sco.com Port 80
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TZak on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST |
I went to the IP link posted earlier http://216.250.128.211 and only found a
"coming soon" page.
However, it is clear that SCO still knows very little
about this new fangled "Internet" thingy.
Go to http://216.250.128.211/images and you
will see that they allow directory browsing of their web server.
One of the
images, "powered_by_wss.gif" displays the text "Powered by SCOx Web Services
Substrate". Does anyone know what that is? Does it have to do with that 'web
services initiative' that they talked about earlier.
And if they can't
configure a web server, would you trust them to be able to make money as a web
services company?
---
---------------------------------
show me the million lines of code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: StLawrence on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST |
I finally got to scoinfo.com! Holy cow! They've posted EVERYTHING!
All the illegal code that IBM stole is there! Unbelievable![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST |
From netcraft...
Windows 2000
Apache/2.0.52 (Win32) mod_jk2/2.0.4
1-Nov-2004
216.250.128.211 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skip on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST |
So, what what was the time to disection? (TTD, the time between the site
launching at it being picked apart here?)
From what I understand so far, the site itself is a placeholder, it refers
visitors to old sco websites (something an auto-redirect page would have handled
much better).
It doesn't actually use any technology owned or written by SCO (odd that,
wouldn't you say?).
The site itself has been set up incorrectly, so the image sub-folder can be
browsed.
Hmm how not to do a website 101. I see a new future for SCO.
---
The above post is released under the Creative Commons license
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0.
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST |
I wonder if SCO's going to put a stock ticker in this new site of theirs.
Seriously, I think it's appropriate. The whole lawsuit bonanza (or at least
McBride's version of it) seems to have been created mainly to influence their
stock prices, so I think they should do it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST |
did anyone look at the owner of the scoinfo.com on netcraft?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=CENTER7-BLK,216.250.128.0,216.250.1
43.255
http://www.nft.com/
owned by NFT - Noorda Family Trust
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST |
scoinfo is obviously very poorly done with the info we have already. Is it
possible that Sco just does not have any employees of the admin kind any longer?
Perhaps the PR folks have an interface to post thier press releases, but
everyone else was let go. They are down to < 280 employees world wide.
Directory browsing was open, that right there is the first sign that whoever set
it up did not know better, or someone that had never setup a website before.
There have been no updates to thier legal page for over a month. Did they just
push out thier last update, fire the programmers/sysadmins? I dunno, rambling,
sorry.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:27 PM EST |
SCO website
to tell Linux supporters why they're wrong
The fightback starts
here
I don't remember seeing this before now. Apparently
it wasn't released in the U.S.?
Anyway, I wanted to make sure we all gave he
and Kieren McCarthy credit for breaking the story well in advance of M. O'Gara.
Their piece is a bit (!) more balanced, which didn't surprise me at all for some
reason. ---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only
disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST |
.... nothing really <a href='www.scoinfo.com'>here</a><br>
Whoaaaa aaaa...
sorry needed the laugh..
Jer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST |
This original filing is an interesting read all by itself. An annotated and
hyperlinked version that ties together all the testimonial documentation we're
now seeing would be a chore to prepare, but would be a truly compelling read on
the order of "9/11" and the "Smoking Gun" tape from the
Watergate scandal. Maybe the judge would find it useful. Volunteers?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Carson on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
I notice that SCOG has not dropped the trade secret allegation from their
website on the ibmlawsuit page. This is pretty irresponsible of them (surprise,
surprise). With all this new publicity they are trying to generate, it will
only increase the damages that IBM can collect (that's if there is any money
left)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST |
Sadly, one of the last engineers at SCO appears to be preparing for his
departure. There was a time when a company often referred to as 'SCO', but
actually named 'The Santa Cruz Operation' was one of the most respected
technology companies in America.
That was then and this is now. Dr. Ronald Record (Phd Mathematics, UCSC), who
headed up most of SCO's Open Source projects is a widely respected and well
known engineer and project leader who has participated in Open Source
contributions to complement oldSCO's Unix operating system since the very early
1990s. Dr. Record has been with SCO for over twenty (20) years and now appears
to be preparing his resume' for review by prospective employers.
Engineers and managers of Dr. Record's caliber should have little or no trouble
finding gainful employement at many fine companies in the Silicon Valley area
and elsewhere.
When the last of them are gone, what will become of the SCO they leave behind?
This once proud company that served a variety of vertical markets the world over
is now little more than a hollow shell, merely a shadow of its former self,
charging blindly into the maelstrom of legal destruction, sort of a suicide by
opposing attorney.
As recent events have shown, they haven't even the expertise left to adequately
launch a web site, much less ever contribute to the technological community
again with the launch of a real product.
I for one, wish you the very best of good fortune Dr. Record. I am grateful for
the wonderful work you put into your career at SCO and most particularly for all
the work you put into SCO's 'Skunk Works' CDs over many years.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dyfet on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST |
| What a metaphore for SCO. Like another thing, they make big proclamations,
they hype it with press releases, and when it's finally time that they have to
deliver on what they claim, well, rather than come in with a bang it's much
more like a whimper. And it promises SCO's favorite catch phrase; "as the
future home"; delay...delay...delay. And incomplete. Hmm...perhaps the rest
of the website, like so many other things SCO is missing ("misappropriated
SysV code in the Linux kernel" for example), it is yet to be found in Blepp's
suitcase!
So why did they go through this exercise in self-humiliation? I
think they
were hoping it would get ddos'd so they could put out some press
release
about how they are being denied the ability to present their side, and
then
they could just keep it down and let it be forgotten before people saw
that
they had nothing to show. I suspect nobody
was supposed to see the stark
and empty content, but rather it was meant to
provide an oppertunity for SCO to
claim itself an injured party (if they would
stop shooting for the foot they
would suffer far fewer injuries...) and perhaps
drum up some material for Boies
to use about "evil linux crackers" with a Jury,
should this farce ever get that
far. Ah well...yet another SCO footbullet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phirephly on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST |
Wasn't this supposed to be up and alive Nov 1 (today)? I'm glad to see things
are so efficient and well-run in the proprietary world. Someone should tell SCO
that the time for "anticipating" is over and that it's time to post a
website... or perhaps they'll just file an over-length memo for another delay? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:24 PM EST |
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=CENTER7-BLK,216.250.128.0,216.250.1
43.255
Sco doesn't like the GPL and believes it's
unconstitutional, but on the other hand they apparently
like to use Linux to host their crap.
And look at number 2: the Canopy group.
Why didn't they go after them instead of Daimler and
Autozone? ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cerebius on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST |
Much has been said about sco's new web site (or lack thereof).
To risk being called a troll, it is possible the late change of name made it
difficult to be ready in time for the unchanged delivery date.
Nah, they turfed it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST |
The letter to IBM telling them they had 100 days before the AIX license would
be "terminated" also is dated March 6, even though the notice, under
the original license agreement, gave IBM 100 days to fix whatever breach SCO
might be claiming. Well, they just skipped that part. Normally, in my
experience, when you have wording like that in a contract, you send the notice
of breach, let the 100 days run, and then you sue if the problem isn't remedied
first.
Since there is no fax number or email listed on the Summons or the Complaint,
SCO appears to have mailed it to IBM, via this CT company in Salt Lake City. So,
no matter how you slice it, I think that probably means that all SCO partners
and the press received the filing before IBM did. They may have grabbed it quick
off of SCO's website when the news broke. An Infoworld article dated March 7
shows that IBM said they hadn't had time to read it thoroughly yet..."
The only reason for this (as if we didn't already know) was for the pump &
dump SCO was doing with their stock. This was the beginning pump. SCO never was
looking for a remedy and never would have accepted one even if IBM had offered
short of a buy out of SCO. I believed that at the start of all this and still
believe it.
It is important to also note that is the reason they won't disclose any files /
lines to date (besides the fact that there aren't any). In the 2 years this case
has been running, the cout has been more than patient with both sides in
allowing amnedments, overlength memos, motion upon motion, etc. It has to
eventually come to an end and for SCO that end isn't going to be pretty.
Groklaw has served a valuable part in the fight and will continue to serve that
role as long as necessary. Darl & Co. underestimated this from day one and
now he is trying to play catchup. It won't work mainly because there is no SCOX
community. Darl has managed to mess up any support he had from former customers
when his company sued the first end user. Even when it was Caldera it was biting
the hand that fed it.
With as much FUD as they spread they now expect to be believed solely because
they put up a web site that says it's so. It doesn't work that way and he knows
it. Why else would he put up a site that doesn't allow comments? Besides the
fact that I would hate to be the moderator of such a site, the only conclusion I
come up with is they are afraid of the really tough questions that would be
asked. Things like, "So just who owns the copyrights?" and "Why
can't the Red Hat case proceed again if the IBM case is only about
contracts?"
The list of good questions for SCO goes on and on. I suspect those questions
will never be answered by SCO but they certainly will be answered by the courts.
SCO's day of reconning is fast approaching and it seems like there is nothing
they can do tro stop the train from wreaking....
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
