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
"Just a case study"...
Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:30 AM EDT

I hear SCO has removed the binutils package Groklaw told you about on Monday. They may think that means their ELF troubles are over or at least ameliorated. I don't think so.

Meanwhile, here's a highlight from an article by Bob Mims in the Salt Lake Tribune, mostly on the slide in the value of SCO's stock since Judge Wells' recent ruling, called "Market slide: SCO Group's stock falls to $2.28 per share":

Market-watchers said Tuesday that unless SCO succeeds in getting U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball to review and overturn Wells - a rare occurrence - it appears the company's future will be dismal.

"This is now no more than a case study, albeit a very important one, for the software industry," said Stuart Cohen, CEO of the pro-Linux Open Source Development Labs. "It shows that Linux and open source [freely distributed] software are bigger than any one company. "Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace. SCO . . . is dead. This plan [of litigation] didn't work at all, and now they are paying the price."

SCO is a case study, all right. None of the shareholders were willing to talk to Mims or were unavailable, but he did interview some analysts, and no, not that one. I think you'll find it worth reading. It's kind of a milestone.

Also, just to let you know, the Red Hat judge is stirring again. Pacer records that there will be another telephone conference in September:

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 9/6/2006 08:30 AM before Honorable Sue L. Robinson. (rld, ) (Entered: 07/31/2006)

Of course, IBM has done all the heavy lifting already. So that will have to tide you over until I can finish the next in our series of articles. Hint: I started thinking about lxrun and what it is for, remembering that it was released under the GPL.


  


"Just a case study"... | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Typos Here
Authored by: entre on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:33 AM EDT
For PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic posts here
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:37 AM EDT
Posts under here will be modded down for being on-topic.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why has it dropped?
Authored by: Felix_the_Mac on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:54 AM EDT

I mean what are the market mechanics?
It has seemed for the last few years that SCO stock was not behaving like a
openly traded stock and was not responding to the steady flow of bad news.

Also, I thought that the vast majority of SCO stock was held by companies who
had pledged to back the company until the very end.

What has changed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Premature overreaction
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:01 AM EDT
Of all people Stuart Cohen, CEO of the pro-Linux Open Source Development Labs,
should know better than to believe that Magistrate Judge Wells did rule on any
Items that Linux users were to be concerned about.

I'm not even sorry to tell this, but this continued media disinformation and
mischaracterization of court proceedings leading to a false sense of all
problems being solved is getting quite disturbing, not to say irritating.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The litigation model still works just fine.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:05 AM EDT
In this one case, SCO tried to shake down IBM and it didn't work. The shakedown
usually does work though. It sometimes even works when the defendant tries to
resist; RIM vs NTP for instance. There are many cases where companies with
bogus patents have been able to extract money from companies that couldn't spend
the money to put up a defense. It especially works for the RIAA in extracting
the life savings of people who can't afford to fight them.

The SCO vs IBM may be a wonderful case study but the lesson seems to be: don't
bother unless you have really deep pockets. Red Hat should have got the
injunction they were seeking. IMHO it should have been a slam dunk. In that
case we do have something to learn from Germany.

What would change the world would be a case where the community successfully
stands up to a patent troll and wins. Our legal system seems to have descended
into some kind of blunt object for pummeling ones business rivals. That's bad
for competition and by extention, bad for the economy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

lxrun is.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:21 AM EDT
... still being served. Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

They actually took it down
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:23 AM EDT
I guess they do read groklaw. It took them a few days to do that. Removing
binutils now reminds me about Darl's comment about "wiping the fingerprints
off". He really just doesn't get it. They distributed it. I'm surprised
they don't shut down that whole ftp site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Elf Distirbuting
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:30 AM EDT
ok, just for giggles i did a quick look around the ftp2.sco.com web site, and found a few new things. ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/osr6/handoffs/ that is a directory that was created 7-28-06, and has a file in there called elfsh-0.65rc1Sa.cpio.bz2. the cpio is a archive of some sort, but looking a hex dump of it it deals with Elfsh, which is the The Elf Shell. as i can't open the archive i can tell if it's has the gpl copying file in there or not yet. i'll keep working on it till i can open it. Serria

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mourning Coffee
Authored by: fudnutz on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:49 AM EDT
She finished renumbering the exhibits and attached them to the filing and
sent it to staff central for final editing. She was done and didn't want to
think about what's next. She picked up the media summary and headed for the
conference room for the morning break and meeting. What a gas! Their opponent
had been caught again giving away the very software they claimed had been
stolen! That would be worth a chuckle today.

As she approached the conference area she saw Tom, Evan, Dave and the Geek all
seated and slouched. She heard none of the usual banter. They all had coffee
but a newly cracked bottle of airport rum stood half empty on the table.

"Did somebody die?" she greeted them appropriately.

"Worse. Dave's opening argument." The Geek raised a copy of media
summary and pointed to the very software item she had planned to celebrate.
"Dave was planning to click on it during his opening argument to sort of
put the SCOnks at an embarassing disadvantage."

"Those gd obsessive clickers at Groklaw! They keep undermining us,
stealing our thunder!" Burst Tom.

"It was too much to hope for. We still have a few tricks left."
Reasoned Evan.

"Hey, remember trial is still a remote possibility. We can replace that
item with something just as dramatic." Said Dave consoling himself.

She pictured the stiff upper lips and Silver's quiver at counsel table had this
tactic been employed. It would have been a priceless moment. Something had to
be done about Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Just a case study"...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:01 AM EDT
The fact that SCO removed the utilities means two things:

1. they are destroying evidence.

2. they read groklaw!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Just a case study"... NOT
Authored by: dobbo on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:26 AM EDT

While I might agree that SCO's side of this case is little more than a case study, I could not say that the whole case is. Has everyone forgotten IBM's counter claims?

IBM has a number of counter claims that all reference the GPL. This case is now about proving the GPL in a US court. That's what keeps me intrested.

Dobbo

[ Reply to This | # ]

End of the IP lawsuit epidemic???
Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:28 AM EDT
This case included, it seems these IP lawsuits are not the path to easy profits
they once were. I can't remember a case off hand, but seem to recall that in the
last couple years many of these cases have not produced the desired results the
plaintiff had wanted. It makes sense though. Many companies were growing very
quickly in the 90's, as were the technologies. Management often didn't /
couldn't anticipate that IP would be an issue. I believe that most of the
obvious and easy IP infringement cases have been adjudicated. SCO is like the
Enron investor who put every last dime into what looked like a sure thing, only
to find out when it was too late, that there's no such thing as a sure thing.

PS. Typed on Debian Etch Laptop. Disto-junkie since 2001.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gartner FUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:29 AM EDT
From the Rob Mims article: "George Weiss of Gartner Inc. observed that SCO's stock slide, at least in part, may be linked to lagging interest in the Unix-based products SCO offers in favor of improved applications emerging from various flavors of Linux."

We must be careful about FUD like this. SCO's Unix business may be going downhill, BUT other companies are doing just fine in their own Unix business - ie: IBM.

SCO's stock slide is more likey a result of [1] a failed business model (sueing customers & partners) and [2] the business community no longer trusts or wants to do business with SCO - see point [1].

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Here's the Source Code"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:30 AM EDT
SCO may have taken the source code off their servers, but they're still telling you where you can get it. ftp://ftp2.sco. com/skunkware/devtools/index.html#binutils

[ Reply to This | # ]

Isn't This Worse News for The SCO Group?
Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:33 AM EDT

By removing that binutils package, aren't they rather strongly suggesting that having it there, for all to download, was something of a problem for them? Aren't they just making things worse for themselves?

Sometimes The SCO Group is like a thieving child that quickly tries to hide the stolen cookie behind their back, even though someone else has just pointed out that they were holding it in their hand for all to see. Removing binutils now just confirms that The SCO Group believe (for good reason) that leaving it there (as they already have done, for so long now,) was not good for whatever passes for their case these days.

:-D

---
NO SOFTWARE PATENTS - AT ALL!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does Bob say this...
Authored by: klog on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:41 AM EDT
"...SCO, alleging IBM had transferred SCO's proprietary Unix code into its
Linux releases, ..." ?

IBM, the well-known Linux distributor? I think not.

Maybe he meant "IBM had transferred SCO's proprietary Unix code into its
[Caldera's] Linux releases" <chortle>

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, they aren't "supporting their customers" any more?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 12:19 PM EDT
I'll be fascinated to hear why they:

1) Were still distributing this years after (kinda, sorta) suing IBM over it.

2) Suddenly felt the need to take it down now, if it's not germane to the case.

Seems to me like they're reacting much as a... guilty person might. I don't see
how they can spin this as a simple omission or unimportant, but I'll be booking
front row seats for the performance where they inevitably try to do so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why stop there?
Authored by: moz1959 on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 01:22 PM EDT
If you care to look around, there's much more than just the binutils stuff. How about the GCC compiler suite itself?

ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/osr5/devtools/gcc/

There's much more, but I don't care to spend the time creating all of the clickable links. :-)

Regards,

Moz1959

[ Reply to This | # ]

A more interesting comment...
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 04:14 PM EDT
.. is how does the 'Owner of Unix' and whatever else SCO
claim still has download sites available under the
monicker sco.com.

Now, if you are a savvy tech company, you would think
first and foremost you would have some sort of handle on
the DNS, let alone the server contents of supplying this.

http://osr5doc.sco.com:457/RNOTES/RN_skunkware.html

is still about (google search finds it). Port 457? It
appears nobody is in control of what is available (whether
this is relative?).

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

So they took it down
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:43 PM EDT
Doesn't matter - I have a copy of the actual page with all the download info :)

I am sure IBM (well, CS&M) does as well. Won't do them any good now. Indeed,
I am sure CS&M has not only the intro pages, but the actual downloads
(suitably certified, of course).

PeteS

[ Reply to This | # ]

could Kimball overturn Wells' leniency?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 07:38 PM EDT
Maybe this is just my fantasy, but is there any chance that Kimball could review
Wells' work to conclude that Wells' was inappropriately tolerant of SCO's
hijinx? Since I doubt that anyone could be so incompetent as Team SCO, I am
firmly convinced that they have abused our justice system purely for the sake of
creating market difficulties. No-one with half a brain, much less access to
SCO's body of information, could conclude that they have a case based on their
filings, so the suit has have the simple objective of manipulating the tech
market based on well-publicized misinformation... as well as attempting to
extort money from defendants by threatening (baseless) legal action.

Were I in Kimball's shoes, and were such options legal, I would take action to
make sure that SCO did not file another haphazard appeal and that SCO started
taking court orders halfway seriously. You can take the first faulty list of
source code complaints as a mistake (with a big grain of salt), but everything
thereafter, including the appeal, did nothing but raise IBM's legal bills. I
would like to see SCO fined three times IBM's legal charges starting from
receipt of the second code list through judgement on the appeal.

Later.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vendors abandoning SCO...
Authored by: gdt on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 08:57 PM EDT

George Weiss... "It's nothing definitive, but one [information technology] manager told me that their application vendor is abandoning SCO and leaving the user in the lurch," Weiss said. "Effectively, he will be forced to migrate, most likely to Linux."

Which avoids the point: no small vendor leaves their customer "in the lurch" for no good reason and without a lot of soul searching. In any case, in this vendor has provided the customer with a clear path forward: run our existing software, but on Linux instead of SCO. That's not a huge ask.

Once people understood the bizaare nature of SCO v IBM, the lawsuit caused application vendors and users to flee from SCO.

No small application vendor wants to battle SCO, they don't have IBM's deep pockets. So they've been quietly preparing their escape plans. And they understand that their users would prefer to run Linux than to run Solaris, so that is what they are porting to.

Similarly, the point users took home from the Daimler and Autozone suits was that SCO was a risky company to have a relationship with. That's when IT managers asked their staff to identify all SCO products and to plan to get rid of them. Quietly, since it was an ex-user that SCO sued. But get rid of SCO all the same.

I'm in contact with a large number of IT installations in my job and this is the uniform strategy. Of course, none of them are going to be so silly as to bring themselves to SCO's attention by speaking about SCO to the media.

There must be nothing so lonely as being a SCO sales rep.

[ Reply to This | # ]

lxrun
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:27 PM EDT
> I started thinking about lxrun and what it is for,
> remembering that it was released under the GPL.

It wasn't. You might at least check LICENCE in
<URL:ftp://ftp.ugcs.caltech.edu/pub/steven/lxrun/lxrun-0.9.6pre1.tar.gz>
or the earlier version from sco.com.

(Obviously it couldn't be, with proprietary errno.h and
elf.h stuff in it.)

Dave Love

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • lxrun - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:38 PM EDT
    • check your inbox n/t - Authored by: jog on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:45 PM EDT
    • lxrun - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:49 PM EDT
      • lxrun - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 05:09 AM EDT
        • lxrun - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:16 AM EDT
        • lxrun - Authored by: jog on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:30 AM EDT
        • lxrun - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:43 AM EDT
          • lxrun - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT
            • lxrun - Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 10:08 AM EDT
            • lxrun - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:35 AM EDT
  • lxrun - Authored by: Aim Here on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:26 AM EDT
    • lxrun - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 07:00 AM EDT
      • lxrun - Authored by: Aim Here on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 07:53 AM EDT
        • lxrun - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:02 AM EDT
  • lxrun license info. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:53 AM EDT
preserving evidence
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:02 PM EDT

Has anyone downloaded the Skunkware isos yet? All the SkunkWare isos from ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/sk unkware/?

What I'm thinking is that the iso images contain most of this in detail, and considering that the Santa Cruz Operation was an actual software company, intending to keep customers through goodwill, I suspect that all the software available under the GPL and presently unpresent on the SCO site, will be there together with the source code, in those isos.

So, could someone in the US (or Europe) with a broadband connection, take a snapshot of the website and download them quickly? There are five iso files in that directory,

ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contrib-3.1-42-20010529.iso
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contrib-3.1.1-10-20011130.iso
ftp:/ /ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/skunk-7.1.1.iso
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com /pub/skunkware/skunk2000.iso
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/skunkwa re-8.0.0-20010615.iso

together with assorted other files:

ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/01-MD5-sums
ftp://ftp .iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/README-OSR5
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/sku nkware/README-OU8
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/README-UW7
ftp ://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contrib-3.1.1-10-20011130.md5sum
ftp:// ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contributed.jpeg

All this is true as of today: Thurs Aug 3 02:59:51 NZST 2006

---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

The real significance of Bob Mimm's article
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:26 AM EDT
I didn't see too many comments on it, but he said that as of a couple days ago,
SCOG stock is now trading for $0.02 less than it was the day they filed suit.
Heading down. How fitting.

I wonder what creative stories they'll come up with for SEC investigators or
investors? Maybe they'll patent the process of suing scam operators and then
charge anybody who comes after them with patent violations! ;)

[ 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 0.06 seconds