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
Reaction to SCO's New Legal Documents Page
Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:23 AM EST

Most of the reactions to SCO putting up their new legal documents page have been to note that SCO used Groklaw and Tuxrocks to build their document collection. It's an irresistable story. It's just so funny. But here's another reaction on a deeper level. Line56.com, "The E-Business Executive Daily", has an astute article noting the new page, but it says it is simply too late for SCO's page to matter, and not only because what SCO is offering is already available on Groklaw and other sites:

The use of the word factual is likely a dig at the number of anti-SCO websites (the foremost of which is Groklaw) that have proliferated in the wake of company's open attacks on not just companies but the very open source concept, which has plenty of corporate and individual defenders. . . .

However, SCO says that the site will contain other "valuable information" as well, which can be read as an intention to get the SCO side of the story out on a grassroots basis. But the damage has been done, not just via SCO's own attitude, but because of blogs like Groklaw.

Indeed, one of the lessons that businesses can learn from the various controversies surrounding SCO is that blogs are very powerful at concentrating and harnessing the power of many scattered individuals (indeed, that's the premise behind open source as well). SCO has fought the idea tooth and nail, but other businesses will embrace it -- e.g., by building blog-based customer communities of their own.

Now, I'm not an analyst, but I would guess community-building only works for companies that don't sue their own customers.

In another report, Blake Stowell is once again stating that the company will be filing its 10K and 10Q real soon, any day now:

"We feel like we are on track to resolving all of the NASDAQ issues right now," Stowell said. "We hope to be able to turn in our form 10-K to the SEC very soon. As soon as we do that we believe that will satisfy the Nasdaq's requirement."

We'll see. I've heard "soon" for a while now. I'm starting to feel like a longtime girlfriend who asks when her guy plans on popping the question.

Stowell says something else that reverberated in my mind:

Stowell said the delayed launched stemmed from the volume of documents that were involved in its various cases and calling the site a "very time-intensive project."

"Obviously we want to be respectful of the court," he added. "We are very careful to make sure we are not posting anything on the site that wouldn't be in accordance with what the court would have us put up there."

Time-consuming! He doesn't know the half of it. Imagine if they had scanned the documents themselves, instead of just downloading ours. But note the last part. You don't suppose they plan on finding a way to put up that email they've been yearning to show us, do you? Whatever he means, I feel foreshadowing in that remark. I also think it's my role to point out that while they attribute the delay to the magnitude of the task, back when they first told us they wouldn't be doing the site, it was reported that it was because of legal concerns.

Ah! The shifting sands of SCO. I believe IBM could write a book on that subject.


  


Reaction to SCO's New Legal Documents Page | 94 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Reaction to SCO's New Legal Documents Page
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:33 AM EST
corrections here...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:34 AM EST
Please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thay cannot make a statement without spin doctoring it!
Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 10:54 AM EST

Take a look at Blake Stowell's statement:

"We feel like we are on track to resolving all of the NASDAQ issues right now,"

Starting his statement in this way makes it seem like it is a "NASDAQ" issue, not an issue of The SCO Group not complying with Federal law and SEC rules!

SCOX is not facing delisting by Nasdaq because of some "NASDAQ" issue, but because the SCO Group is not following the rules of the SEC and the Laws of the United States of America. Sure they are following the rules that allow a delay in filing their 10-k, but this is a "compliance with the law" issue, not a "NASDAQ" issue.

Give me a break! They cannot make a simple statement without trying to spin doctor it to either shift the blame or the nature of the facts.

Blake, please get a clue. The SCO Group is working to comply with Federal law and SEC filing rules. When the SCO Group completes the work it needs to do to get in compliance, then the threat of being delisted by NASDAQ will probably be resolved.

The SCO Group is pathetic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Real Soon Now"
Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 11:23 AM EST
This has long an expression concerning software (er, vaporware). Guess it's
appropriate for a (former?) software company to issue statements like that.

---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or Learn About--on Groklaw!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw in hardcover format
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 11:27 AM EST
"Ah! The shifting sands of SCO. I believe IBM could write a book on that
subject."

I perfectly understand if you've gone sour on the idea of writing that book
yourself, PJ. Years (now) of this stuff cannot but take a toll and suck some of
the enthusiasm out of the task. Be that as it may, Groklaw (the site) waits for
somebody to weave together the thousands of amazing facts and happenings into
one riveting tapestry, and since Day One I imagined nobody but you wielding the
pen. What -- we should be content with MOG and Enderle writing the definitive
SCO history? :-(

But if it not be you, PJ, then I wonder... an open approach to writing the
definitive SCO Saga book... online via a wiki or similar setup, with an eye
towards eventual book publishing... very interesting. Assigning a small chunk
to each author to be thoroughly researched via Groklaw's archives and elsewhere,
recorded, peer revised, and finally compiled into the whole tale...

But how do you go about telling the 'whole tale'? So many threads intertwined:

• the SCO saga from SCO's POV: "The slippery snake sheds its skin again...
and again... and again..."

• from IBM's POV: "Snake, meet steamroller"

• from the FOSS POV: "We'd shake your hand in thanks, but, frankly, we know
where it's been..."

• from Groklaw's POV: "We came, we saw, we blogged..."

• from the FUDster's POV: MOG, Enderle, MS, Anderer, AdTI, etc. "Friends,
Romans, countrymen -- lend us your fears..."

and so on, and so on... Yes, a massive undertaking that perhaps requires the
massive resources that can only be mustered by a distributed community.

Anyway, I'd still love to see PJ take a shot at authoring the definitive 'SCO
wars' book, even if it were a simple elaboration built upon her regular
articles. Fingers crossed that a publisher might be willing to cough up an
advance to make it plausible (hint hint to any press industry folk out there!!).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another noted reaction to the new SCO site
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST
I don't care to dwell on unpleasent things (or people), but there is one
reaction to the new SCO IP website that amused me.

A certain individual who need not be named wrote a story about SCO's new website
calling it welcomed and long over due. No surprise here given this person's
attitude toward IBM and Groklaw.

One small phrase in the "article" caught my attention, "[The
filings are] all blessedly comment-free." What this person is saying is
that they now have a source they can use to get the documents they need to play
"journalist" without having to endure the comments of the GL
community.

This has several implications:

1) This person now has no reason to come back here and subject themselves to
our analysis. "So long. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

2) This particular "journalist" was required to endure our community
because we were their only source of material for their "articles".
Forget the fact that many of the documents posted here are publicly available.
Please note the quotes around the term "journalist".

3) If the real problem with GL is the comments, what will this person think
when SCO starts adding their own commentary to their new IP website? Will the
site no longer be "blessedly comment-free"?

I've listened to this particular person ramble on about themself and their
credentials and their long history covering the IT industry. While I was
listening, I realized that this person is the equivalent of those trashy
tabloids at the grocery store -- you know, the ones with mutant babies kidnapped
by space aliens who use water as a clean source of energy but we can't get ahold
of the technology because certain billionaire moguls have paid the aliens to
hold out on tranferring the knowledge to us because it would destroy the
automobile industry.

Well, that's enough of that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: calling the site a "very time-intensive project"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 03:20 PM EST
Wait 'til they start sifting through the mountains of code that the IBM dump
truck is about to upend into their compound. ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reaction to SCO's New Legal Documents Page
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 05:10 PM EST
"We feel like we are on track to resolving all of the NASDAQ issues right
now," Stowell said. "We hope to be able to turn in our form 10-K to
the SEC very soon."

"feel"? "hope"? Boy, those are pretty weak statements.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bring it on SCO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 05:12 PM EST
By all means give SCO a chance to speak.

I laughed at the thought of it all. Truthfully - I read SCO's side of the story
from the beginning. Read every word, news article, and press release I could
find.

SCO is first cause - and pray someone does something to defend the good people
of this earth from Darl McBride's and SCO's sermons.

The response to SCO's side is the so called anti-SCO sites.

Let us be fair and give SCO a chance to tell their side. (As if we already
haven't).

------

I'm still laughing at how fun it is to debunk Darl's sermons and the SCO press
releases.

Bring it on SCO!

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Little Escapade Really Tips That TSG Has No Case
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30 2005 @ 09:39 PM EST
The TSG strategy is to get before a jury with no evidence. Any evidence would help IBM.

TSG is not keeping up with all the legal documents concerning this case. TSG is not interested in doing research. TSG cannot evaluate all the code they have demanded from IBM, and they will not even attempt to analyze that code in depth.

The TSG strategy is to bamboozle a jury with no evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO blog
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2005 @ 03:20 AM EST
"Indeed, one of the lessons that businesses can learn from the various
controversies surrounding SCO is that blogs are very powerful at concentrating
and harnessing the power of many scattered individuals."

SCO doesn't seem to have that much people left to concentrate, especially people
who feel inclined to invest their power in reviving an almost-dead horse.

What title could a SCO blog possibly have?
The Darl and Blake show?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO will never start a blog, or a community
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, March 31 2005 @ 01:31 PM EST
TSG would have a hard time making a blog. Mostly because the topic of the blog
can only be ongoing litigation, and anything said by TSG can and will be used
against them in this case. Their idea of a blog is more effective to get their
word out to the business community anyway: The press. It worked. They got the
attention that they wanted, and had most of the industry taking their claims
quite seriously at the beginning.

But as we know, a lot of the more effective IBM motions depended upon comments
from TSG that they now regret. Judge Kimball cited these public statements to
contrast TSG's claims with the evidence that TSG presented when he denied IBM's
motions without prejudice, fortelling how he'll act on those motions once they
are re-filed after discovery.

But if we still assume that TSG starts a blog, let's look at what might happen.
Even things that sound innocuous at the time may backfire on them as legal
strategies change. For example, their early complaint had trade secrets claims,
and they made a lot of noise about copyright infringement. Now, of course, the
case is strictly contract issues, and they want to change their complaint yet
again. Originally they claimed that the GPL is unconstitutional, and yet in
their defense to the 8th counterclaim they claimed that the GPL license is what
gave them the right to distribute Linux.

I have heard that a good lawyer will often start by telling their client:
"Shut up and let me do the talking." In this case, of course, they
were trying to build a business strategy on their unproven ownership claims, and
trumpeting their claims to the press was the only way to do it. They paid the
price for it as it impacted their legal efficacy (it limited some of the
strategies that they could follow). At this point, that business idea has
completely failed and their best strategy is to just stay silent other than very
brief press statements about major events. Thus, once TSG's business became
litigation, it became impossible to create a blog. Note that IBM doesn't have a
blog on this either, nor are they contributors to Groklaw. The reasons are
simple: talking about a case during litigation is very unwise.

Remember, in the Free/Libre Open Source world, the goal is to create a community
that can effectively reach an objective, create software, or solve problems. The
community is the heart of the process. That's something that detractors fail to
understand, and something that even those who are working within this paradigm
sometimes forget how miraculous this is. A business has a goal of making money,
whether or not a community supports it. (As long as their CUSTOMERS support it,
it can continue.) A FLOSS project fails immediately without a community. TSG's
model doesn't require one, and their antagonistic behavior actively repudiated
it from the FLOSS community as well as their own customers.

In the future, smart companies will learn from this lesson. At Groklaw, which is
an excellent example of this idea, we have people with an interest in the
outcome of this case tearing apart every filing, and shining light on things
that the parties might try to obfuscate. IBM has benefitted from it greatly.
With any luck, it will mean that companies become more responsive to communities
that are interested in their activities, and can tap great resources. The power
of the internet to join people in disparite corners of the world who are
interested in the tiniest, strangest topics is quite surprising. And the best
part is that they don't just TALK about it, they act, and create tangible
products such as software, research, or legal analysis. TSG not only failed to
understand the lesson of the power of an online community, and what tools such
as blogs could do, they didn't understand what could happen if they antagonized
one to the point where the community organized to defend itself.

[ 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 0.03 seconds