|
|
| As the Media Turns |
 |
|
Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 02:11 PM EDT
|
Even ZDNet has seen the light, at last. They have an article by an attorney, Thomas C. Carey, a partner at Bromberg & Sunstein, who was a programmer before he became a lawyer, which outlines some reasons he thinks SCO is in trouble. He outlines all the factors to consider by those thinking of getting a license. This article might come in handy when talking to PHBs. He makes one point that I'd never thought of:
"SCO may have set a ceiling on recovery. SCO has already announced a licensing program with specific licence rates. In the worst case, and unless and until SCO makes a much clearer and more public case that its code has been stolen, SCO is not likely to recover from individual users more than it has announced its licence fees to be. Why pay now when you can pay later or quite possibly not at all?"
A number of articles are beginning to appear where the reporter actually does some digging and evaluating. There is an outstanding example in the story here, "Novell letters throw new light on IBM case" by Sam Varghese. He's been a fair guy for some time, but take a look at this opening section:
"Two letters written by Novell chairman and CEO, Jack Messman, to SCO president and CEO, Darl McBride, in June throw an entirely different light on the lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which the former initiated in March.
"Both letters were cited by IBM as exhibits last week when it counter-sued SCO, on a range of issues.
"The letters indicate that SCO has no contractual right to terminate IBM's AIX licence. The agreement under which IBM acquired these rights appears to have been a three-way contract under which Novell retained certain rights, one being the right to compel SCO to waive or revoke any of its (SCO's) rights under the contract."
He then proceeds to show what it all means. It's so refreshing to see reporters start to get it. It does look like the media tide is turning. SCO's PR team must be up nights.
Here's another one from Linux World, "Is SCO Perfecting the Art of the Big Lie?" by James Turner, senior editor of LinuxWorld Magazine and president of Black Bear Software as well as director of software development of Benefit Systems, Inc. He has a suggestion for SCO, one we've seen before, but I like his spin:
"Maybe they should hire the former Iraqi information minister. 'Thousands of companies have bought our licenses! I will show you the list this afternoon! The blood of the open source infidels will run through the streets of Salt Lake!'"
I'm thinking some Groklaw readers will top him, though. They're a very creative bunch.
Here is another, "SCO Group mines PR of Linux claims, but offers few specifics":
"SCO's poisonous tactics have made it a pariah. The prevailing view in the tech world, as far as I can tell, is the hope that IBM will squash SCO like a bug. "
Here's one that carefully first explains who SCO thinks needs a license, called "Damned if you do and damned if you don't", but it ends like this:
"But when you look at the entire trail of events, one can't help but wonder--is this just a clumsy execution of an 11th hour plan or perhaps a smokescreen for a hidden SCO agenda?"
On the MS Front
Well, they just were found guilty of violating someone's IP. It is a patent case, and they say they will appeal, natch. Eventually, even the large corporations will logically notice that these types of lawsuits are more than annoying. But notice the link to SCO that popped into the reporter's head:
"Microsoft--a stalwart supporter of SCO's IP infringement claims against IBM--has vowed to fight the verdict of a US federal jury that affirmed that the company's Internet Explorer browser violated the IP rights of a smaller ISV. On Monday, a US federal jury in Chicago agreed that IE violated an existing patent and awarded $US521 million to the University of California and Chicago-based Eolas Technologies, which originally asked for $US1.2 billion in damages. . . .
"Microsoft stands by its products and will continue to develop innovative technologies that benefit consumers. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this case, Microsoft will work hard to ensure that there is very little if any impact on our customers."
"Very little, if any." Say, is that the same as indemnification? Kidding.
Speaking of kidding, or is it you must be kidding:
"Scott Charney, chief security strategist at Microsoft, told developers at the TechEd 2003 conference in Brisbane, that information collected by Dr Watson, the company's reporting tool, revealed that 'half of all crashes in Windows are caused not by Microsoft code, but third-party code'".
I knew there must be a "reason" that keeps happening to Windowsfolk.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
| half of crashes are due to 3rd party code?
Hmmm... one of my Linux boxes is up 6 months now (same box used to crash daily
on NT), never did find out why ....
So where does that leave the typical Linux distro, with almost NO first-party
code (redhat/SuSe/Gentoo ..), NO 2nd party code (the customer as 2nd party?)
and 99%, the remainder, 3rd party (contributors) 4th party (patch submitters to
the 3rd party) and 5th party (there must be some of these, can't think who they
are at the moment)
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:25 PM EDT |
| pj, one of the comments from those articles slapped me in the face like a dead
trout.
What was it about? "Two Words: Mail Fraud."
From your understanding, as you are not a lawyer [<- my indemnification
clause], would the 1500 invoices SCO sends out not constitute mail fraud? IANAL
but I have seen "THE FIRM". :)
If so, the USPS might want to know about this and I will be more than happy to
inform them.
Z
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
| I found this clip from an unrelated article re: mail fraud penalties:
"Each count of making a false bill of lading and committing wire and mail fraud
carries a potential penalty of five years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines.
The extortion counts each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a
fine of $250,000."
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Did Scott Charney of MS just admit that half of all crashes in Windows ARE
caused by Microsoft code. Is that an admission of culpability? If a crash
causes loss of revenue for a corporation, did Mr. Charney just open to door to
liability? Oh wait, that pesky EULA tells us that Windows could cause blindness
and they wouldn't be at fault in any way. Never mind, Mr. Charney's comments
are not legally binding.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
| Since you requested it, and inspired by this famous
site, some quotes if SCO were to hire the former Iraqi information
minister:
"My feelings - as usual - we will litigate them all"
"The open sourcers, they always depend on a method what I call ... stupid,
silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies."
"No I am not scared, and neither should you be! Be assured. SCO is safe,
protected"
"We have them surrounded in their courtrooms."
"I triple guarantee you, there are no IBM lawyers in Utah."
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
| The Canopy Group joins the press quote fun.
Check out the following article
http://www.slt
rib.com/2003/Aug/08132003/business/83448.asp
Although to be fair, it could have just been the journalist that made the link
between the two companies.
Mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
| Here's an interesting story someone on the SCOX Yahoo! forum pointed out:
http://www.pbs.org
/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619.html
To heading is "What Goes Around Comes Around
The Only Clear Winner in This SCO Versus IBM Case is Microsoft"
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
Don't they (MS) realize that they've just said (apparently proudly) that MS
code causes as many problems as ALL other programs combined?
Rand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
| MS claims that 3rd party software causes 1/2 of all crashes... it's really
higher. I run a PC under XP Pro SP1 (wishing I could use Linux, but a couple
proggys I use aren't available for Linux yet). I used to have an ATI video card
in the system, but it would crash no less than three or four times a day. After
every crash and reboot, XP would claim that a third party video driver for the
ATI card was to blame for the crash. The only problem was that I was not using
the ATI drivers from ATI, I was using the default XP drivers from MS which claim
to be digitally signed and certified by MS and not done by ATI at all! How many
other crashes due to MS drivers written and certified by MS are being blamed on
3rd parties? I'd guess quite a few.
BTW, I got a GeForce 5600 on sale to replace the ATI card. Not a single driver
for the GeForce is certified by MS, which bitches left and right about how it's
gonna crash because MS hasn't certified it. I haven't had a single crash since.
Now a days, I look for drivers which aren't certified by MS; they tend to be
MUCH more stable than the MS drivers. :^}
BTW, yes, I patch the blasted thing every other day to avoid those pesky
security issues. How can MS claim Windows is "secure" when you have a blasted
patch every other day?
J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
| I had a look at the lamlaw site (http://www.lamlaw.c
om/DOJvsMicrosoft/WrapAndFlow.html) as that was recommended as having
further articles by an attorney to support the anti SCO case. I didn't look too
hard but got the impression that whilst there is some good advice there it isn't
very well researched - That's not intended as a criticism, he is happy to say
what are assumptions but readers here will likely know that some of the
assumptions aren't valid. Summary - worth a look but if you want to disuade
someone from buying a license I'd stick to Thomas C. Carey.
Now question time - does anyone know how to find out if any discovery is
happening yet? I saw a suggestion that SCO weren't serious about pursuing the
case against IBM because they hadn't attempted any discovery but I thought
discovery was usually a private affair so how would anyone know this?
Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
| Nick, loved it. I knew I could count on Groklaw.
Z, the only advice I ever give is, ask your lawyer.
Adam, when I go to Pacer, the court has discovery information there on the list.
Assuming it is accurate, I'd say discovery is going on. You can't read the
actual docs referred to, but the fact that things like interrogatories have
exchanged hands is up there, IIRC. Interrogatories are where you send a list of
clarifying questions to the other side and ask them to answer, which they
usually do with as little information as they think they can get away with. But
that, at least, is going on. It's a process.
There is a schedule now for the case, which the judge has set, including for
discovery, telling them when he wants certain things done, so both sides have to
do discovery, whether they want to or not.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
| Check out this
http://www.computerweekly.
com/Article25949.htm
Maybe I'm understanding it all wrong, but I think it sounds like (1) Sequent
licensed NUMA to Old SCO in 1998, (2) it also sounds like there were plans as
early as 2000 to offer NUMA on Linux (presumably also involving Old SCO)
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
| Actually, the new SCO PR person was revealed on comp.os.linux.advocacy back in
June: ;-)
In late-breaking news, SCO of Lindon, Utah, has announced that al-Sahaf (also
known as "Baghdad Bob" and "Comical Ali") will become spokeman for their
SCOSource intellectual property initiative. Drool McBride, CEO of SCO said,
"Baghdad Bob's wide international reputation and well-known credibility are a
perfect fit for our organization."
In his first official statement, al-Sahaf said, "There is no Linux code in SCO
Unix -- never! We will destroy IBM's computers, software, and shovels! They
are already committing suicide outside the doors of the court house! We will
beat them with lawsuits and shoes!!"
And a bit later:
"Informed sources say that Baghdad Bob is now on his way to Lindon UT, to
unleash the "mother of all press release campaigns" against IBM and Linux. In a
departing statement, he said:
"I can assure you that those villains [at IBM] will recognize, will discover in
appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending
things which have never taken place. They will be burnt. We are going to tackle
them."
BTW, thanks for the link to the article by Tom Carey.
Rich Gibbs[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
| News on the SCO's sequent release, including IBM's response, and some new
amusing DiDio quotes
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13100174quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
| and with Stowell quotes on basically the same story
http://ww
w.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=352370471&fp=2&fpid=1
http://www.inf
oworld.com/article/03/08/13/HNscoterm_1.html
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
| Hee hee!
<"SCO has not shown us any evidence that we've violated our agreement with
them," says Trink Guarino, an IBM spokeswoman. Guarino also points out that IBM
stopped selling the Unix-based hardware and software last year and has since
been migrating customers to newer platforms.>
So, IBM haven't even been selling it for ages.... And getting customers onto
newer kit!
SCO certainly are good at targetting.... Not!
Cambo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Oh, and noticed SCO still doesn't seem to have found time to post IBM's response
and counter claim to http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ which
is according to them is display "all of the latest filings and information from
both SCO and IBM"
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
| Cambo: IMHO
Trink + DiDio = hilarious in combination
I wish the quotes had been in the same article, then more people could have
enjoyed the comedy
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Oops, they are in the same InformationWeek article.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
Are you sure IBM stopped selling AIX based boxes - the IBM I know makes most of
it's money selling (and supporting) legacy platforms. AIX may be soon to be
shelved, but untill that happens you can be sure that the AIX business units are
probably shifting more boxes and licenses than the Linux business unit.
Salim Fadhley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
| Today's license withdrawl is for Dynix/ptx - That was Sequent's version of UNIX
which IBM have been migrating people off of. I tried to find some information
about it on IBMs site today and I'll I could find was notices about discontinued
versions and recommended alternative platforms.
Of course all IBM need to be able to distribute it is a Unix license that covers
the relevant version so even if Sequent weren't one of the licensors to which
Novell retained rights (and they are an old licensor so they probably were) then
unless Dynix contained a newer version of SVRx than IBM had licensed, IBM are
free to distribute it under their own license - their license doesn't say that
their derived work must be AIX.
I'm still pondering these 148 files. The only way I can think of that SCO got to
that figure is to include every file that makes a call to a kernel lock routine
that therefore now uses RCU even though many of those calls are probably
unchanged since the simple non RCU kernel lock was introduced in 2.2. Not only
that but when building a non SMP config most of that code is replaced with NOPs
so even if some of the RCU code ends up in the kernel it probably never gets
called.
Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
| Let me see if I have this straight..
According to Scott Charney, the breakdown of windows crashes is:
50% Caused by Microsoft code
50% Caused by anybody else's code
<snark>
Bearing in mind how many bad amateur programmers there are producing broken
software for Windows, that's a real achievement by Microsoft!
</snark>
M[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
| Some more links here:
htt
p://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-07-003-20-PS-BZ-CD
This one illustrates Caldera-SCO's changing face:
http://news.zd
net.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2090360,00.htm
Caldera on Merging Unix/Linux
http
://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,2085321,00.htm
If you read this next one, there was a lot of activity by a lot of companies to
make Linux scale. So why is $CO picking on IBM (other than $$$$)?:
http://linuxtoda
y.com/infrastructure/2000092200504OPCYLF
I'm not sure what this one is saying, but it does look interesting (I think it's
in Dutch):
http://www.comput
able.nl/artikels/archief0/d32jb005.htm
If someone has already pointed out any of the above links, please forgive me.
;-)
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
| Something I don't understand. Could somebody explain?
Today's press release talks about "improper transfer of Sequent's UNIX source
code and development methods into Linux" and "IBM has also contributed
significant UNIX-based development methods to Linux in addition to the direct
lines of code specified above"
What is a "development method" (not from a technical sense, I mean from a legal
sense in this case) and why is that a claim?
If you go to school or university or read a UNIX book, wouldn't you learn the
"development method" anyway? I'm mean it's not like there are not lots of ways
to learn UNIX style programming
If you had a UNIX implementation not based on AT&T code (e.g. S/390 like IBM, or
a BSD like UNIX), wouldn't that also give you independent access to the same
development methods?
In other words, I can't see how it can be a trade secret, unless I am completely
missing the point.
I also can't see how it could form the basis of a copyright claim. If I write a
book in Microsoft Word (and/or use the technique I learnt from a book about
creative writing), I don't think Microsoft (or the book about creative writing's
author) has a copyright claim on my new work? Or do they?
Lastly, as far as I know the development methods for creating UNIX style
software aren't patented, at least not by SCO.
So, in summary, why is it in SCO's PR, and what are they driving at? Am I
completely ignorant, and missing their point entirely? It makes no sense to
me.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
On the Linux licensing, new quotes
http://ww
w.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/14/1060588501364.html
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
| I've just realized we are all missing probably a very important fact.
SCO's press release says they gave IBM 2 months notice.
13 Aug - 60 days = 14 June
I think it is possible the letter was sent on 13 June
What was happening on 13 June?
http://www.computing.co.uk/News/1
141464
http://www.vnunet.com/lite/News/1
141577
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 02:44 AM EDT |
Major, the Dutch article http://www.comput
able.nl/artikels/archief0/d32jb005.htm is about the SCO-Caldera merger in
2000. It has some critical remarks about Robert Love's plans to merge Linux and
SCO Unix and Caldera's involvement in both project Monterey and the Trillian
project.
I could make a translation of the article, but I don't think it will provide
significant new information.
I am also wondering why IBM gets the blame of putting NUMA and journalling
file systems into Linux, while there were also significant contributions from
SGI and EMC...
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 03:16 AM EDT |
| SCO says they gave 60 days notice on June 16
http://www.slt
rib.com/2003/Aug/08142003/business/83769.asp
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
