|
MS anti-OSDL PR, 2000: "O'Gara said she was going to call them, so it looks better coming from her" - updated 4xs |
|
Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT
|
Speaking of vendors using journalists, here's an interesting exhibit, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4081 [PDF] from the Comes v. Microsoft collection. It's an August 2000 PR strategy email from Microsoft's PR firm, Waggener Edstrom, regarding the then-pending announcement of the formation of OSDL. And who should pop up but Maureen O'Gara, offering to lend Microsoft and WaggEd a hand, according to the email.
Microsoft wanted to have its own spin for the press when this announcement happened, I gather, and it's certainly fascinating, like picking up a rock, to see how they do this kind of thing. In the exhibit, you find Waggener Edstrom's "PR plan to address the OSDL announcement next week," sent to "David Martin (WinMKTG)," among others, and some interesting nuggets, which I highlight in red:
As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David &
I have spoken with Maureen O'Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the
story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us....
Tactics: ...
* Inform Maureen O' Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John
Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval received from
BrianV to proceed)
* Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for this
going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug
Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O'Gara said she was going to
call them so it looks better coming from her.
* Issue "buddy mail" to target press list at the time of the announcement and begin
to proactively call-down to editors immediately after announcement made. Owner:
davidmar
So. I will let you draw your own conclusions. Of course I contacted Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond.
Neither can remember speaking to O'Gara about the OSDL announcement. Bruce says he was at HP at the time, and while they did speak with O'Gara in general, he doesn't recall any specific conversation about OSDL: "It's all news to me. Interesting to see how this looked through Microsoft-colored glasses. I was at HP while this was going on. We would talk with O'Gara, but considered her the most sleazy of her
bunch. I don't remember talking with her about OSDL. The OSDL founders
were not out to subvert the GPL, interesting that MS would think so." And Eric pointedly said, "I do not recall ever having been
contacted about Maureen O'Gara on this or any other matter -- and I don't
think she can possibly be stupid enough to believe I'd help her do one of
her trademark hatchet jobs." No comment from me on that. But I'm thinking plenty. So what does it mean that they can't remember any contact? Eric suggests the email might be an early draft, with the plan later revised to be more realistic about who to contact. It was also a long time ago. But what remains is the O'Gara offer to WaggEd/Microsoft to do a little stealth fronting for them, as I read it.
Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, IBM and NEC did indeed issue a press release on August 30, 2000: 2000-08-30 -- INDUSTRY LEADERS FORM OSDL
SANTA CLARA Calif., Aug. 30, 2000 - Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, IBM and NEC Corporation today announced the Open Source Development Lab, the industry's first independent, non-profit lab for developers who are adding enterprise capabilities to Linux*. The four companies plan to provide significant equipment and funding to the lab over the next several years. Additional contributors and sponsors of the lab include Caldera, Dell, Linuxcare, LynuxWorks, Red Hat, SGI, SuSE, Turbolinux and VA Linux.
Supporting the Open Source Development Model
The lab will support existing industry projects that use open source licenses and are established according to today's open source development model. The lab will not create new projects; instead, it will help accelerate existing or new projects developed by the open source community. The initial lab projects will be announced later in the year after an open, neutral process for choosing projects is coordinated with the open source community. Initial projects are expected to range from tools development to kernel projects that advance the enterprise capabilities of Linux. More information about the lab and its initial projects can be found at www.osdl.org. Independent Board to Govern Lab The lab will be governed by an independent board and management structure, and will consist of members from the open source community as well as representatives of sponsor companies. An independent executive director employed by the lab will implement policy, make funding decisions and work with the open source community to select projects.
As you can see, Caldera was a founding member and OSDL was designed from day one to be vendor-neutral. Yes. They know better, in short.
[Update: We mere mortals can't read what Ms. O'Gara wrote about OSDL back in 2000, but those with supersubpoena powers probably can. Here is where she references calling OSDL OSF2 when she wrote about it again in 2003. The reference to OSF2 might remind some of the case of Addamax v. OSF, from the early nineties, litigation it was alleged by the defendants Sun "covertly funded". One of the attorneys for Addamax on that case was a James V. O'Gara of Kelley, Drye. I've always wondered if he might be related to Maureen O'Gara. In any case, that is the OSF she is referring to, and yes, IBM was a member of OSF back in the OS/2 vs. Windows NT days.]
[Update 3: Mr. O'Gara is listed as the registered agent for Maureen's G2 Computer Intelligence company at the New York State Division of Corporations Entity Information. Groklaw member joef found that.] Well, well. The plot is now thickened to pea soup consistency.
And here's the article Maureen O'Gara wrote in May of 2003 about Novell telling SCO it had kept ownership of the UNIX copyrights, the article that led to her recent deposition. And finally, here's an article published by Unixgram-x in 2000, which says USL was having trouble making money from SystemV Unix and sold it to Novell not for cash but for shares. Oh, Maureen O'Gara's G2 filed a motion to intervene in Addamax, just as she did in SCO v. IBM. From the docket, 1:91-cv-11152-JLT - Addamax Corporation v. Open Software, et al: 255 -
Filed:
09/08/1994
Entered:
09/09/1994
Affidavit
Docket Text: Affidavit of Maureen O'Gara, President of G-2 Computer Intelligence, Inc., applicant for Intervention, filed. (lt)
256 -
Filed:
09/08/1994
Entered:
09/09/1994
Terminated:
09/19/1995
Motion to Intervene
Docket Text: Motion to intervene by G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. , filed. (lt)
257 -
Filed:
09/08/1994
Entered:
09/09/1994
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: Memorandum by G2 Computer in support of [256-1] motion to intervene by G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc., filed. c/s. (lt)
263 -
Filed:
09/19/1994
Entered:
10/11/1994
Description not available
Docket Text: Letter dated: 9/28/94 to: the Chief Judge re: as counsel for Sun Microsystems Inc. ("Sun"), having been advised of Motion of G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. to intervene in action for purpose of securing public access to non-proprietary unprivileged information. Noting: Sun has no opposition. filed. (lt) Small world. [Update 4: Anonymous reminds me of the link to the Daniel Wallace litigation, which O'Gara reported on favorably when no one else did. Let's compare the Addamax language with his complaint: October 5, 1992,
AllBusiness.com on Addamax:
The suit charges that OSF, based in Cambridge, Mass., and its seven corporate sponsors "have acted as an illegal cartel by conspiring to fix prices for software technology, setting price ceilings in certain markets, and providing competitive advantages to the sponsors by dictating standards favorable to their technologies and strategies."
Remember
this article in June of 2005 about Wallace's suit against FSF? Recall the wording from Wallace's complaint in Wallace v. IBM? It stated that IBM
"conspired to promote a copyright licensing scheme employing the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE [H.I.] to fix the prices of computer programs." And you can read about O'Gara's coverage of the litigation here. Note from what I wrote about her scoop (where did she get that?) that even back then, I was wondering about connections: Of course, Ms. O'Gara discovered this anti-GPL lawsuit by means of her constant scouring of Indiana civil suits in Federal court, I'm sure. We know she lives to understand the law, and we wish her the very best in her pursuit of specialized knowledge....I can't help but wonder, if we watch carefully, if we'll find a Microsoft and/or SCO tie. Let's see if a lawyer volunteers his services or feeds suggestions informally. If there is a conspiracy, might the strategy be to have someone fight the GPL who has nothing to lose, unlike SCO, who can't fight the GPL and still distribute GPL'd code -- which they still do -- and who are vulnerable to copyright infringement claims, brought by IBM (and conceivably to be brought by the FOSS community at large) if they don't accept the validity of the GPL and yet distribute GPL'd code? Wallace certainly seems to share SCO's original ideas on the GPL and how it is ruining the marketplace for proprietary software. Remember Darl's Open letter on copyright, which I called "Darl's Greed is Good Manifesto"? And then there is the fact that MOG keeps giving him prominence when no one else I've seen takes him seriously.
Hey, FSF. I hope you are subpoenaeing his emails -- and Maureen O'Gara's too -- going back a couple of years, at least. We might get to the bottom of the conspiracy, if it exists, if my instinct is right. (Do I hear the sound of delete buttons clicking all over the country?... naughty, naughty. Oh, and smashing your hard drive... it's been tried, and it didn't work.... The dynamic duo. Maureen O'Gara and Daniel Wallace. What a couple. It's a metaphor, one that informs us which side will win this anti-GPL war -- you can tell by the quality of the warriors on each side that the winner won't be Microsoft. They'd best learn to get along with and play nicely with the GPL. Get some execs on it right away, Microsoft. This is a Quixotic quest that can only damage you, battling the GPL. Windmills can hurt you if you draw your sword to fight them, as can the GPL.) I remember that I wondered at the time if James O'Gara had any involvement in that litigation, behind the scenes.]
And for those that like mysteries about time stamps and believe they are evidence of collusion between a party and the media, those with sooper subpoena powers may want to ask why this small UK site [link no longer works, and robots.txt blocks Wayback], which claimed to have no connection to Maureen O'Gara, but written by a "Maureen," appeared to have a SCO court filing [PDF] before it was entered by the clerk. It was filed with the court on a Friday, written about on Saturday by "Maureen" (bylined "Posted by Maureen on January 28th, 2006," it began "In a motion filed yesterday with the Utah court"), but not entered by the clerk until the 31st, if you check Pacer. If I were on the trail, I'd look to see if that filing appeared on Yahoo! SCOX message board first, and if so, posted by whom? When did Al Petrofsky get it? I can't remember. The plot thickens again.... Actually, as you know, I consider it all Horse Feathers, to quote the Marx Brothers, who certainly could do a fine movie, A Night at the Courtroom, were they all alive and still making movies today. Speaking of plots thickening, back when Maureen O'Gara published her stalking article, I received an email from Jeff Merkey in May of 2005, claiming to have been involved: "If you are wondering who gave MOG your address and who tracked you down, well, guess who? Now that you have been exposed, my task is complete here." I have no way to verify if the claim is true, of course. It may be like bombings in the Middle East. How do you know if those claiming responsibility are being truthful? I mention it because someone using the nym basicdistrust whom the locals on SCOX Yahoo! message board seem to think is Merkey just posted a rant about me, which ended, "Death to Linux! Hell to dishonest paralegals!!" I take that as a potential threat against my person, actually. Just in case anything happens to me, you'll know where else to begin looking for clues in SCOworld and its environs. [Update 2: The nym has now
chosen to deny being Merkey, but has not stated who he is, relying upon anonymity, ironically enough. I do think SCO should make a public statement disassociating itself from its extremist supporters, however, and make it clear that such threats are not acceptable.]
Here's the complete exhibit as text, with the exception of the list of press and analyst contacts at the very end, which you can read from the PDF. It's certainly worth doing.
It's a long list of press/analyst contacts, many with notations as to whether they were perceived to be "balanced" or "negative", such as Stephen Shankland and Paula Rooney in the "negative" category and Rob Enderle and Barbara Darrow in the "balanced" group. And some have no category, like Dan Lyons. I don't know if that means that category was unknown or already sewn up or what. I'll let you be the judge. Here's the exhibit:
********************************
From: Doug Miller
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:03 PM
To: Stephanie Wettstein (Waggener Edstrom); Katrina Busch (Waggener Edstrom); Chuck
Humbie (Waggener Edstrom); Steve Aeschbacher (LCA)
Cc: David Martin (WINMKTG); Adam Sohn; Vivek Varma; Brian Schuster; Dan Nesult; Dan
Crouse (LCA); Tom Burt (LCA); Chris Meyers (LCA); Lisa Tanzi (LCA); Kim Akers
(WINDOWS); Tom Phillips; Carl Stork; Mike Porter; Bill Veghte; Brian Valentine; Jim
Ewel; Vivek Varma
Subject: FW: OSDL PR Plan - attorney client privileged
attorney client privileged
Stephanie/Kate/Chuck, please find attached the PR response plan for the
anticipated OSDL announcement. As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David &
I have spoken with Maureen O'Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the
story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us. WaggEd actions include
reviewing the positioning, review the proposed buddy mail, review Q&As, etc.
Privileged Material
Redacted
We expect this to leak later today. At that point we will
proactively respond or contact press with our positioning points.
OSDL PR Response Plan
Situation:
Microsoft expects
1. The public announcement (8:30 am Wed Aug. 30 2000) of the following structure
(referred to as OSDL) that is a consortium between Intel, Redhat, IBM and HP
* Independent, limited # of employees, non-profit entity.
* Participiting companies contribute equipment and money
* Two levels: (i) founders/steering board, big $ contributors, (ii) general members
not steer but contribute technology, benefit from "the IP protection"
2. OSDL's operations guidelines will be to delop a set of infrastructure for open
source development projects, claim that target is very high end space competing
against UE10000.
3. OSDL to provide:
* IP buffer for the Open Source community -- "solving the IP problem of the GPL" -- "to
get around GPL issues".
* Linux primary beneficiary, other OSS projects could benefit.
4. OSDL's possible goals include:
* IP buffer. Ship GPL code unchanged without donating via GPL patents in that code.
* Chip demand increase
* Converged Linux/GPL code base (required to make available to community)
* "Planned" releases, coordination, obvious OSS inertia and royalty savings c.f.
Windows
* Undifferentiated "subsidy" foundation for their "expensive" proprietary, add-on
products
* "Industry standard" APIs for add-on products (i) mitigating risk of drawing of
value-add products into the GPL, (ii) direct focus of OSS energy towards slowing how
much code flows into the GPL to preserve opportunity for expensive add-on products.
Objectives:
Reduced potential negative PR to Microsoft, reinforce our message that we are here
now with customer solutions and question the customer value of this announcement.
Actions:
Positioning:
1. The drive to build the Next Generation Internet is happening now.
* Microsoft always welcomes fair competition, as in the end this benefits customers.
* Microsoft is in the best position today, to go after this business and solve
real customer business problems
* Microsoft focuses on customer solutions, rather than "fashion" technologies
* We have good relationships with Intel, IBM, HP and others who are having great
success solving business customer needs today with Windows 2000.
2. Bad news for Sun & GPL
3. Old UNIX guard attempting to hijack Linux to go after Sun
* This will drive a wedge between the original Linux champions who are for "free"
software and the established commercial UNIX "old guard" further confusing
customers
* Old UNIX guard want to adopt the UNIX business model where they provide
proprietary differentiation on top of a common base as they realize they can't add
any competitive differentiation under the GPL.
* Appears to be business as usual for the fragmented UNIX market and very
reminiscent of previous UNIX alliances.
4. These types of alliances ultimately do not benefit customers and have historically
been prone to failure (OSF all over again for example)
* Customers want solutions today and clearly it will take a long time for this new
group to produce viable production quality, customer-ready solutions.
* Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, himself recently said Linux was 5-10
years behind Windows.
* Linux and Open Source are supposed to be all about "free" technology and no one
group having competitive advantage. This new alliance seems to go against these
principles.
* What about HP-UX, IBM AIX and the IA-64 Monterey project? Are these dead? HP and
IBM have said in the past that those platforms are what they are using to target
the high-end UNIX segment.
Tactics:
* Confirm Compaq and Dell are not part of this announcement and are informed of
Microsoft's position. Owner: Compaq - jime, Dell adamso
* Inform Maureen O' Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John
Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval received from
BrianV to proceed)
* Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for this
going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug
Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O' Gara said she was going to
call them so it looks better coming from her.
* Issue "buddy mail" to target press list at the time of the announcement and begin
to proactively call-down to editors immediatley after announcement made. Owner:
davidmar
* Contact analysts (Summit Strategies or Creative Strategies) for their assessment
of implications. Owner: davidmar
Publication call-down:
potential press list only - confirmation required by Waggener Edstrom
[Contacts_xls]
Buddy Mail:
[icon]
Old UNIX guard
[illegible]Linux
Rude Q&A:
Q. So what does Microsoft think of this announcement?
A. Microsoft welcomes healthy competition but we don't see how this will benefit
customers. Groups like these typically take years to get their act together -- for
example OSF, the Open Group, iABI, the ACE initiative, the UNIX SVR4 "Destiny"
project, etc. Microsoft has solutions for customers today.
Q. What does this say about your OEM relationship?
A. Microsoft has healthy relationships with IBM, HP, Intel and have they
substantial successful businesses based around Windows solutions. I'm sure their
commitment to Microsoft technologies will not be affected by this announcement.
Q. Is Microsoft developing a version of Office for Linux?
A. No, we have not seen volume demand for this in the commercial marketplace.
Q.There seems to be a momentum behind Linux based research from IDC and Netcraft
A. Netcraft recently revised their methodology to more accurately describe sites
actually being used by customers. Windows and Linux have approximately the same number of
active sites however the big news is Microsoft technology is running half of the
servers that power the Internet. Many of these servers are predominantly deployed
within the Fortune 500 and other major businesses around the world. IDC's recent
research highlights the number of copies of Linux distributed -- however given that
Linux is free, this by no means represents real-world usage of Linux as a production
operating system.
Q. Does Microsoft have plans to open source any of it's products?
A. Microsoft have a number of source programs today for customers and developers. We
are continually listening to feedback from customers on how best to help them
provide great solutions on Windows platforms.
Questions for the press to ask OSDL:
Q. What about other UNIX offerings (AIX, HP/UX, Monterey) from the participants?
Q. How does this play versus all the other announced initiatives (LSB, GNOME Foundation,
Trillian, etc...)
Q. This sounds like a closed club -- we thought the whole point of open source was is
open for anyone to join?
Q. Isn't OSDL simply another well-funded Redhat
Q. Does this indicate that RedHat's existing business model is untenable?
Q. Did OSDL founders consult Linux Torvald, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, et al. re
appropriateness and objectives of OSDL formation?
Q. What is the corporate structure of OSDL? Who owns it? Who controls it? Will OSDL
make the agreements between its founding members public?
Q. Can other companies join OSDL and, if so, what types of participation are possible?
Q. Would OSDL consent to OSS community oversight?
Q. Who will control the work done by OSDL? Will OSDL work be "open" to public
inspection, i.e., conducted on the web with unrestricted public access? If not, why
not?
Q. Who will have ownership of IP relevant to code developed by OSDL? What about code
contributed to OSDL?
Q. Will all code released by OSDL be released under the GPL? If not, what code will
be subject to different terms/conditions, what terms/conditions will apply, and who
will decide what code to except from the GPL?
Q. How can OSDL avoid the code it releases being subject to the GPL if OSDL is
modifying GPL code?
Q. Will OSDL provide any representations/warranties/indemnification that code
released by OSDL is free from infringements?
Doug Miller mailto: [redacted]@microsoft.com
Microsoft Corporation / [redacted address, phone, fax, cell/pager number]
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
|
|
Authored by: BC on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
..go here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:00 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: jdashton on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Perrins => Perens - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Linux Torvalds - Authored by: hopbine on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- [illegible] ==> Hijacks - Authored by: GriffMG on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: capt.Hij on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- News Pick: Geldorf -> Geldof - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- s/delop/develop/g - Authored by: laitcg on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT
- Corrections - UPDATE - "case" s/b "cash" - Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT
- Corrections - Updates - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- Minor nit: "Update 2" missing left brace "[" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 10:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: BC on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
Links are better when they Click. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Green screen emulation software - Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:25 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: mike_keighley on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- New SCO sig... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- We were doing that back in 1994 - Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- News Picks - SCO announces a GUI for UNIX green screen apps - Authored by: markpmc on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Back to the Future - Authored by: Mp3rocks on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 08:29 PM EDT
- Not? - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 10:20 PM EDT
- Tone it down, guys - Authored by: argee on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 01:11 AM EDT
- Lazy Judges with closed minds - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Office Depot: Thank you! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- Office Depot: Thank you! - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Confusing product name - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- Office Depot: Thank you! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- Staples not friendly, LIVE CDs in display units, was told Sr Mgmt banned this for LINUX testing. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Staples not friendly, LIVE CDs in display units, was told Sr Mgmt banned this for LINUX testing. - Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Staples not Linux? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- Alice, Let's Cheat - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Funny thing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 09:10 PM EDT
- I would have left a few copies of danik boot and nuke lying around - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 07:06 AM EDT
- Staples not friendly, LIVE CDs in display units, was told Sr Mgmt banned this for LINUX testing. - Authored by: rc on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- [PR] Michael's Got a New Notebook... (Dell PR release) - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Good Samaritan Acts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Sen. Patrick Leahy speaks at an April 18 press conference to introduce PATENT REFORM BILL... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- microsoft settles iowa lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- SCOX down again. $0.90. April 25 is unstoppable. PAINTBLASTER truly holding its nerve. n/t - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- A look at the Media - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Queensland snubs Vista, Linux in 100,000 PC refresh - Authored by: CypherOz on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- Queensland snubs Vista, Linux in 100,000 PC refresh - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:30 AM EDT
- Extra boost for Microsoft's bottom line - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 02:27 AM EDT
- Yes sometimes we Aussies can be dumb - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 04:57 AM EDT
- Downgrading - Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Downgrading - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- Downgrading - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- Downgrading - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- Downgrading - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2007 @ 12:17 PM EDT
- Downgrading - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- Rebuilding the Internet Microsoft Style. - Authored by: kedens on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- Microsoft to extend monopoly (NYTimes) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 03:56 AM EDT
- Microsoft's "linux patent" deal wityh Samsung - Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 04:56 AM EDT
- My choice for quote of the day - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- somone needs to SUE ms to stop these patent deals and force them to reveal the patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- All these Ubuntu sidebars. - Authored by: RLP on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Mr O Gara's page - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Dell brings back XP on home systems - Authored by: say_what on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- SCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 04:04 PM EDT
- Microsoft cons us? - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- A visionary in 1992 predicted Linux would kill SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Microsoft's OLPC Project - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- Microsoft wanted Warren Buffett to invest in 1997 - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- *SO* glad I don't live in Utah - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- M$ the best Ad for Mac - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 10:34 PM EDT
- Woah! First I'd heard of this! Lots of hands in cookie jars! - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 11:05 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
Any ethical and honest publication would immediately dismiss any so-called
journalist who acts in this manner. Not doing so calls into question the
integrity of the whole publication.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
So ...
MS is totally organized in their efforts to have their PR monkeys throw wenches
into the FOSS cogs.
Hmm ...
Not a surprise. Two thoughts:
1} They do it so ineptly.
2} I need to ascribe more to conspiracy and less to stupidity than I thought
when reviewing MS actions.
Dang! I don't like wearing tinfoil!
Well, I know I have a very high quality, single billet CNC milled aluminum
chapeau around here somewhere.
---
"SCO's response to IBM's statement of undisputed facts is largely a frolic and
detour into the irrelevant, ... "IBM's (Redacted) RM in Support of its SJ on
CC10[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Monkeys, Wenches and Cogs - Authored by: finman on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- World wide annoucement - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:55 PM EDT
- Monkeys, Wenches and Cogs - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Monkeys, Wenches and Cogs - Authored by: Kelledin on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Monkeys, Wenches and Cogs - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Since Enron etc. - Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- Monkeys, Wenches and Cogs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- Wenches? Perhaps you meant Winches?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- who owns hte patent on tinfoil? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Monkey[Boy], Wenches and Cogs, Oh My! - Authored by: brian-from-fl on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- Monkeys, Wenches and Cogs - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:06 AM EDT
- Microsoft is NOT run by stupid people - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 02:33 AM EDT
|
Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends
no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic
customer." - Wikipedia
I thought the word 'shill' had been over-used, but I'll revise my opinion based
on this remarkable blurb. I'm still amazed that M$ people appear to do this in
the belief no one will find out, or there's no impact on their trustworthiness
if they do:- it's just business.
---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joef on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
Is it common to involve the lawyers in PR operations? Is this done to avoid
taking illegal actions? Is it done as a ruse to hide behind the privilege? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kelledin on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
I find it interesting that MSFT was already contemplating the indemnification
angle way before 2003. Does anyone remember any public MSFT statements in this
regard back in the same timeframe? --- <Lionel Hutz> I'll be
defending...The SCO Group!!!??? Even if I lose, I'll be famous! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
You can't even see Ballmer's lips moving!
I'd like to see him gargle while Maureen types though.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Uhh... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:20 PM EDT
|
Authored by: AceBtibucket on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Since MS seems to pretend to care about customers and their needs, I suppose we
could all pretend to shocked by this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
Silly me. I thought a "public trust" was you did things for the good
of the public, including getting word out about unscrupulous dealings.
Who's more at fault for the M$ monopoly--the sellers who made their deals with
M$, or the people who just didn't want to hold them accountable?
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Griffin3 on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
... as to the notation of "attorney client privileged" in the memo.
Does that mean, that the writers stamped the entire memo as such, hoping that if
it ever came up later in court, they would argue that the entire memo was
privileged; basically, just a blanket attempt at preventing it from coming to
light? If so, how was this able to be made public record, even with some parts
redacted? Who is the deciderer of what is attorney-client privileged, when the
attorney and/or client are neither a party to the case at hand?
Also, the notation of "buddy mail"; I wonder if that a collection of
astroturf comments that would be send to the publications, to start off their
comments sections? Think of the possibilities! Gor, what that I could follow up
on all the tantalizing questions that this one exhibit suggests ...
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
Sounds like recent SCO Activity to me. If I recall right, they planted stories
to MOG.
This is really dishonorable. People give up their own self morals for money. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
This make me wonder if Microsoft helped set up the "SCO Fan Club".
Maybe some more digging in the pile would turn up information about this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
Hmm... if you had that balancing in a chemical equation.... nitroglycerin is
probably more stable.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Balanced? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Chemical stability - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Chemical stability - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Which is useful - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- But.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- But.. - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- But.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- But.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 09:23 PM EDT
- But.. - Authored by: StudioBob on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:17 PM EDT
- Balanced? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- Of course... EOF - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2007 @ 01:53 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
if IBM could call Maureen O'Gara to testify as a witness if this case ever goes
to trial. I think a recent SCO submission included testimony from MoG that was
effectively new to the case. Wonder if that's sufficient grounds?
It might be interesting for IBM to have a go at "piercing the corporate
veil" and trying to find out a little bit more about the way that she
accepts information from her "sources".
On the large scale, it is possible that one of Microsoft's strategies for
dealing with the competitive threat of GNU/Linux is to "buy off" one
of the distributions and then use the resultant "partnership" to drive
a wedge into the heart of the GNU/Linux community. One wonders if such a tactic
would work in reverse. The content of this email suggests to me that Maureen
O'Gara may be quite familiar with the internal workings of the Microsoft FUD
factory (PR department). I wonder if a little close questioning (or pressure),
correctly applied, would persuade her to roll over on Microsoft?
What's even more incredible is the way, from this mail, as though it seems that
MoG is actively throwing herself at MS, asking them to use her to carry out
their schemes. Obviously this is a lucrative little side-line going on here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- (Unlikely, but) Woudln't it be nice... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- (Unlikely, but) Woudln't it be nice... - Authored by: thombone on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Possible MS strategy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- why is it people claim the division of THE OSS community happens due to novell/MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- (Unlikely, but) Woudln't it be nice... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 11:16 PM EDT
- (Unlikely, but) Woudln't it be nice... - Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:02 AM EDT
- (Unlikely, but) Woudln't it be nice... - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 01:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
Rob Enderle as "balanced"?
Something wrong there...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Whose glasses...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 08:27 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
It certainly looks like MS expect that Maureen would do their bidding. It
suggests that maybe she was paid for her services. Likewise perhaps she is paid
to be a SCO champion (not necessarily by SCO). If there is a clear financial
link between MOG and SCO, was it improper for her to petition the court as a
"non-party"? If a party to a suit hires a sock-puppet to petition the
court as a "non-party" and the ruse is found out, what are the
penalties?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
I note that Microsoft was thinking of this subject
as though OSDL would have
some impact, when in fact,
it is basically irrelevant.
This confirms to me
that Microsoft has always
been intent on a new Internet, albeit, one that
the
darkside can control.
They don't want to document APIs, because that
would
allow FLOSS to interoperate, and by keeping
it secret, they could do magical
things with
a new internet that won't support the documented
community supported
protocols (RFCs).
The recent floating of stories about a new internet
also
fits this theory.The long ongoing lack of deployment of IPv6 also
fits this
theory.
The recent complaint by Microsoft and AT&T over
Google also fits
this theory. Google is the
main defense to the darkside taking over, and
they
know that.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
This really clears some things up.
In Lyons' and MOG's practice, it's expected that journalists are the recipients
of corporate largesse, in whatever form. They take it as a matter of faith
(certitude of knowledge) that all journalists are on the take in some form or
another.
What they see in PJ is a journalist, taking a stance in opposition to their own,
in a relatively small matter. Let's face it, the only offline coverage the SCO
trial is getting is in the local paper, and only a few column inches at that.
What they can't stand is that PJ is so much more competent at hiding her backing
than they are. They're being driven by jealousy, and it frustrates them that
their veils were so easily pierced, while PJ's veil remains as impenetrable as a
burqa.
It's inconceivable to them that a journalist could take time to research a
subject, look at the facts, and draw a conclusion, and point readers at that
conclusion, without having any sort of an "in" or a "fix",
especially in a matter as small as this has devolved down to.
Now I'm not normally a fan of psychoanalytic analyses of these sorts of affairs,
but it seems to make a great deal of sense to me.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
I think they're the same person!
Maureen
James
V [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
I would have thought that MS couldn't possibly be that stupid after going
through and anti-trust case. Obviously I was totally and utterly wrong.
I wonder what effect that this would have on TSCOG vs IBM?
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, April 18 2007 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
knowing MOG as well as I do, I am sure she got on to tSCOG before MS even needed
to ask her to come meet this bunch of slick guys with a money-machine scheme :)
D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
Hah - finally had time to read the names at the bottom. I think that all those
who were listed as "NEGATIVE" ought to band together and send
Microsoft flowers. What an immense boost to their reputations.
Seriously - you are best known by your enemies, and with the world+dog thinking
of Microsoft in a negative way, not being liked by them is a real bonus for a
journalist.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DodgeRules on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 12:53 AM EDT |
According to her G2 website (I won't post a link as I don't think she deserves
the web hits), she has lots of experience stalking and
haunting:
Since launching Client Server News, she has stalked the
aisles of the trade shows with a vengeance, leaving a trail of shaking,
sweating VPs of many a computer company.
She haunts the
corridors of the Microsoft powerbase and gives Client Server News its sharp
edge.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Winter on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
Except for the point that that is exactly what OSDL is for, paying those
involved in FLOSS.
The discussion is rather old-hat, but I would like to make a new story:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
What if Isaac Newton lied.
New historical material unearthed by SCO proves that Isaac Newton was paid by an
old ancestor of OSDL to write his books.
Several journalists contacted by SCO have written that this proves that
Newtonian Mechanics is a scam. "We should not trust the laws of movement
anymore", says MOG, a respected journalist with in-depth knowledge of
technology. "Now we know that Newton was paid off by OSDL, and thus IBM, we
should switch and outlaw Classical Mechanics. We just cannot trust it
anymore."
This also shines a new light on General Relativity, as it is just an extension
of so called, Classical Mechanics, with the same methods and concepts. MOG said
that "we should better look at the sources of the money Einstein obtained.
It would not surprise me if OSDL was involved here too."
This publication thinks MS board members should not book any space flights
again. We now know that the laws of celestial mechanics on which they are based
were paid for by IBM.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
Maureen O'Gara publisher for clientservernews.com.
clientservernews.com registered to G2 Computer Intelligence.
James V. O'Gara registered agent of G2
James V. O'Gara amd G2 involved in the Addamax case
http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/Cases/Addamaxcase1995.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 08:44 AM EDT |
* Old UNIX guard want to adopt the UNIX business model where they provide
proprietary differentiation on top of a common base as they realize they can't
add any competitive differentiation under the GPL.
* Appears to be business as usual for the fragmented UNIX market and very
reminiscent of previous UNIX alliances.
It would appear that Novell was more than happy to help with these action items.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rc on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Ok, this probably belongs in OT, but I'd kind of like people to see it, and
hopefully down here at the end will make it more likely to be seen.
UP above,
and in other things, people have commented about how M$ is planning to EOL
WinXP this year.
Well, its true.
See
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
for the details.
I'm not sure I can get a table in here, so I'll just summarize as
follows:
What: WinXP PRO/TabletPC/Prox64/Home/MediaCenter
End date for
DirectOEM and Retail License Availability: January 31, 2008
End date for
'System Builders': January 31, 2009
So system builders can go for one
year more than you can go buy it off the shelf.
IMHO: ANY company relying
upon Microsfot to supply their OS for any product they are shipping - is going
to be in deep trouble Real Soon.
Please note that I intentionally did NOT
make the link clickable. Please cut and paste if you really need to see the
table. --- rc [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
I can see a journalist going to lengths to get a story. That might explain
why she's anti-Linux, so that anti-Linux companies like SCO and Microsoft will
give her inside information and she can be the first to report on it. Sure it's
biased journalism and she doesn't cover or glosses over their weaknesses, but
that doesn't seem too unethical to me. However, this troubled
me:
* Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly or Bruce Perrins to
solicit support for this going against the objectives of the Open Source
movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this.
Maureen O'Gara said she was going to call them so it looks better coming from
her.
Now it looks like she is acting as Microsoft's agent in
trying to persuade people in the industry to go against the OSDL solely for
Microsoft's benefit and also to hide her ties to them. Why would she do this?
Is she getting paid in money or more inside stories? It seems very strange to
me that she would oblige them in this matter with no compensation.
Then
she went and filed that tripe about PJ. She does a lot of research trying to
find her, but what was the story? The story ended up being a lot of innuendo
and no fact, except for publishing personal information about PJ for some
reason. It really was a hatchet job and unprofessional, there was no point to
the story other than to smear PJ. Did someone pay her to do that or did she
just have an irrational hatred of PJ? Does she own SCO and/or Microsoft
stock?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Reven on Thursday, April 19 2007 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
The nym has now chosen to deny being Merkey, but has not stated
who he is, relying upon anonymity, ironically enough.
I'm not
quite sure I understand this. PJ has been "relying upon anonymity" since the
beginning. If this person, for whatever reason, chooses not to identify
himself, how is this different from PJ asking to have her privacy and anonymity
respected?
--- Ex Turbo Modestum [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, April 20 2007 @ 12:16 AM EDT |
It would be interesting to get O'Gara's response to this. MOG? You care to
post?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2007 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
Oct 5 1992
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/laws-government-regulations-busines
s/324855-1.html
'The suit charges that OSF, based in Cambridge,
Mass., and its seven corporate sponsors "have acted as an illegal cartel by
conspiring to fix prices for software technology, setting price ceilings in
certain markets, and providing competitive advantages to the sponsors by
dictating standards favorable to their technologies and
strategies."'
Remember this article?
June 17 2005
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050617213927771&query=wa
llace+fsf
They keep on trying the same things over and over again, and
get the same results and can't figure out why.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/
Wallace-IBM-1.pdf
"conspired to promote a copyright licensing scheme
employing the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE [H.I.] to fix the prices of computer
programs."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|