Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 08:48 AM EDT |
I wonder why SCO has been so quiet these days. Could the outages during
non-working hours be related to their trying to save bandwidth costs? Could
they be closer to bankruptcy than we all think.
Given the rate of FUD slinging they were involved in I would think that there is
something more important on their minds right now than FUD ?-| minkwe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
You might be jumping to conclusions. Maybe.
Yarro is on the board of SCO. His contact details are probably via Canopy. So
you'd expect them to want to ask him a few questions.
Is that all it says? Would IBM have the choice of contacting him via SCO or
Canopy?
On the other hand: It doesn't look like they wasted much time to go direct to
Yarro
Any additional information? quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
This certainly is an interesting development. PJ - is there any way to get the
text of the subpoena?
td Thomas Downing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
IBM has just subpoened Canopy and Yarro (not SCO and McBride) for something.
If they find evidence that Canopy was manipulating this whole debacle through
SCO,
there goes Canopy's "we're just the holding company" excuse.
http://www.utd.uscour
ts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html
Business owners who have incorporated their businesses must be aware that
corporate shareholders
may be held legally responsible for the liabilities of the corporation.
The law allows creditors or claimants to "pierce the corporate veil"
under certain circumstances and hold the shareholders personally liable.
The theory behind this legal concept is that shareholders who blur the
distinction
between the corporation and themselves should not be allowed
to hide behind the corporate veil.
http://www.bizadvisor.com/pierce.htm
Levi[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
Points taken. I'm going to partially correct myself
> Yarro is on the board of SCO. His contact details are probably via Canopy. So
you'd expect them to want to ask him a few questions.
That is all true, but the summary says they subpoena Canopy, not SCO.
So while it's hard to read too much into a short summary, it certainly sounds
like they might be asking questions about Canopy. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
BTW, another thing bothering me about the invoices.
SCO says the licenses are non-refundable (there's a quote to this effect)
So according to them:
1. If you talk (about Linux) publicly, it'll get you on the hitlist (although
I'm not sure how they intend to figure out how much for)
2. If you get the invoice, you're supposed to pay, without knowing exactly why,
except it avoids the possibility of them taking action against you.
3. If later turns they have no legit claim, tough luck quatermass - SCO delenda
est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:28 AM EDT |
pj & quatermass,
Any way to find out what Yarro got?
Anyone actually got an invoice? This is a research site so I was hoping we
could find someone who has one and then get a copy of the text here.
Is it a legal requirement that software be refundable to some point? Every
major piece of software I've ever bought (including MS products) have some kind
of refund policy.
Keep up the good work. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
From what i've been able to make out: IBM have issued a subpena to the canopy
group. Doesn't this simply mean that they now have to give evidence in the
SCO/IBM case, opposed to actually being involved in the litigation itself?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Stephen
Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
I don't think this like has been posted yet. Some quotes from our favorite
analyst. It looks like SCO is planning invoices for the end of Sept. newsfactor Mike BMW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Idle speculation
Could it be they are asking for personal financial information. Such as tax
forms, stock sales, etc. Maybe they are pressing the stock manipulation angle a
little.
Just a thought. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
That should have read "link" not "like" in my previous post. Gads makes me sound
like my daughter 8) Mike BMW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
> So while it's hard to read too much into a short summary, it certainly sounds
like they might be asking questions about Canopy.
correction:
So while it's hard to read too much into a short summary, it certainly sounds
like they might be asking Canopy questions about either SCO or Canopy - we don't
currently know wat the questions are about.
I'd go back to my original position: be careful of reading too much into it.
Re: invoices. I don't think that they have sent any yet. The plan has been
floated by SCO since fairly early in August. Now they seem to say that they'll
start sending them this month. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT |
Hopefully that misspelling of Yarro's name doesn't gum anything up. I know that
some courts are sticklers for getting things like names on subpoenas correctly
(as its the least you should expect from the cash you're raining down on an army
of expensive attorneys among other reasons). Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Probably an OCR error on the electronic side (you can probably see how 'r' can
be taken for 'n' by software -- a very typical OCR problem. Cannot be easily
fixed by the software in this case because it's a name and not in the dictionary
-- also, the context 'a' might give 'nn' higher probability than 'rr').
The physical documents are probably correct. eloj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
Z. We don't know if it was mispelt on the subpoena. It might be whoever typed in
the summary listing, misread N for R when looking at some paper document.
Another thing bugging me about the invoice idea:
Presumably the invoice is for a license under specific terms, like the SCO Linux
IP license. The "customer" hasn't to my knowledge accepted those terms.
What mean then, is how can SCO invoice according to a particular set of legal
terms, when the other party hasn't accepted those terms as yet.
Can you force somebody to accept a particular contract? quatermass - SCO delenda
est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
Levi ...
Please give credit for the source of your posts: Yahoo SCO message board
#36857 was mine, under the ID abacaxitoo. You not only used the word debacle,
but preserved the incorrect spelling of "subpoened" in your cut and paste and
minor edit. I don't mind being quoted, but I get pissed off by people stealing
my work.
*my Yahoo post**
IBM has just subpoened Canopy and Yarro (not SCO and McBride) for something. If
they find evidence that Canopy was manipulating this whole debacle through SCO,
there goes Canopy's "we're just the holding company" excuse ... and there goes
everybody's profits.
See www.bizadvisor DOT COM/pierce.htm (danged yahoo won't let me post the link)
"Business owners who have incorporated their businesses must be aware that
corporate shareholders may be held legally responsible for the liabilities of
the corporation. The law allows creditors or claimants to "pierce the corporate
veil" under certain circumstances and hold the shareholders personally
liable.
The theory behind this legal concept is that shareholders who blur the
distinction between the corporation and themselves should not be allowed to hide
behind the corporate veil."
* Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
O.K., this is a plug for some SCO humour:
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog
spot.com
Thanks again Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
I hope that IBM goes after the entire Canopy nest of cockroaches rather than
just the SCO-scum cockroach. I suspect that Canopy reps are on the SCO-scum
Board of Directors and with the SEC enforced changes on rules of governance, I
expect that legal accountability for SCO-scum's actions will filter up from
SCO-scum's management to its Board of Directors to the Canopy Group to Yarro
himself. Bring the very war that the enemy started to the enemy himself and
visit on him the horrors of war, I say. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
flights of imagination and OUT OF THE NORM RANTING to follow - to be taken with
a grain of salt.
OK, I know that if SCO objects to this IBM must present credible proof that this
discovery has more than a good chance of producing evidence relevant to SCO v
IBM.
USENET, GROKLAW, Slashdot and Yahoo board postings would not provide that kind
of support for discovery.
Which leads me to wonder what kind of resources IBM has thrown out there.
Private investigators? inside - Informants? ex-employee affidavits?
And a subpoena is a FAR, FAR different animal than a motion for discovery isn't
it? A raptor (subpoena) as opposed to a small fuzzy yellow chick. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
Pure speculation ... disgruntled former employees. Especially ones who were
Linux developers and got axed in favor of those trying to flog the dead UNIX
horse. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
I 110% appoligize if this has been posted before, but even so I think its worth
looking at again in light of this weeks events.
This is the LWN copy of the text of the SCO "Linux" license
http://lwn.net/Articles/43085/
Outside of the usual comments here about liability, trademarks, etc, please note
how they define the various systems. VPN routers for example can not be
embedded systems because you have users that you can add or delete. Devices
like console servers or packet filters might not fall in the embedded
category. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
I noticed that the docket list shows other subpoenas as "Certificate of
Service", while this one shows "Return of Service". Can anyone fill me in on
the difference?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
SCO bills first 1,000 Linux users
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143376
cc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
While SCO seems to be running a stock scam, the rewards going to Darl & Co are
remarkably small. Most of the people selling shares will be lucky to see more
than $300K after taxes this year. As they _are_ selling, there cannot be much
expectation of an early win against IBM (indeed, if the selling orders were
pre-announced to avoid problems with SEC, there seems to have never been any
expection of a quick resolution except possibly for IBM to buy them out.)
Perhaps there is still a hope that they can sell SCO, even if not to IBM? What
if their target is really a company such as Sun or HP? Normally they wouldn't
be interested at the current price, but what if MS started making suggestive
moves. Then the various unix companies might decide it was better to get
together and buy out SCO rather than risk the possibility that MS could gain
control of Unix source (I know that normally MS would not be allowed to buy SCO
while it is a legal monopoly, but that assumes that the US government wanted to
enforce the rules.)
Another fun sco site: http://www.rageagainst.net/sc
ogenerator.php geoff lane[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Unless you are using the DMCA to get rubber-stamped subpoenas like the RIAA, a
subpoena means you showed a judge enough evidence to convince them that you are
probably right on a point related to the case. The fact that IBM got a subpoena
indicates that laid some pretty damning evidence in front of a judge. Any
indication of which jurisdiction issued the subpoena? If it was the courts there
in Utah, that at least SQUARES the power of the evidence in my opinion given
that SCO/Canopy has the hometown advantage. J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
cc ...
Title is misleading ... they haven't actually done it yet. "SCO will start
invoicing Linux users in the next two months, with the first batch of bills
being sent to around 1,000 US users."
It's still pie in the sky, and they haven't acutally screwed up their courage
enough to drop the letters in the mail. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
Tsu: The article, or Stowell's comment, is actually much more imprecise, if he
is correctly quoted, he does not even say that they will be sent, this is in
argeement with the "we have never said that we will bill or sue any user" story
>> Blake Stowell, director of public relations at SCO, told vnunet.com: "A large
number of commercial Linux users could begin receiving [invoices] in the
next month or two.
>> "I would say that a batch in the neighbourhood of 1,000 or so
would go out." Magnus Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
PJ, can we have a comment on why subpeona not discovery motion quatermass - SCO
delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
Magnus ...
You are right. I didn't notice when they ramped up the volume on the
weasel-word generator beyone the previous level. I'm in awe of his fluent
weasel-speak. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
quatermass -
IANAL, but AFAIK "discovery" is against the party you are in litigation with.
Everyone else gets a subpoena. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
Any chance tat the text of the supoena will end up on pacer? fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
fava -
We can only hope. I'd love to see what's in it. I hope it was the kind of
subpoena that comes with marshals and guns and chain cutters. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Here's a comment from Ryan Tibbits, SCO's in-house counsel, in a CENT story from
June 3:
"The Canopy Group said SCO has got to hire somebody in-house to manage the IBM
litigation,", Tibbits said.
That looks like piercing the corporate veil to me.
Legal action hits SCO Web
Site mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
From an IBM PR today:
Library of Congress hires IBM-
"We selected IBM as the infrastructure provider not only because of their
support for the Linux operating system, but also because the openness and
flexibility within the Linux platform can grow significantly with this project
and that's what IBM and its servers with POWER technology gave to us, said Jim
DeRoest, assistant director, Computing & Communications, University of
Washington. "IBM is committed to understanding our unique requirements for this
project and has provided a solution that will grow as our project and users
demand." sam[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
"Levi ... Please give credit for the source of your posts: Yahoo SCO message
board #36857 was mine, under the ID abacaxitoo. You not only used the word
debacle, but preserved the incorrect spelling of "subpoened" in your cut and
paste and minor edit. I don't mind being quoted, but I get pissed off by people
stealing my work."
Tsu Dho Nimh, sorry for stealing your work. Won't happen again! English is too
difficult for me to speak or write, so i just shut the fuck up next time. It
just happend that your thought was the same as mine and would be usefull in this
board. I usually link when it's bigger comments, information.
Have a nice day! The thief!
PS: Credits for this english words goes to "Van Dale Nederlands - Engels
Woordenboek" (dictionnary) Levi[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
This, on the Yahoo SCOX board, pretty well summarizes the
SCO-smells-like-BRE-X analogy. Rand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
Levi -
No hard feelings :)
But remember, I have a copyright on the use of the word "debacle" to describe
SCO's actions, so you will have to use "suicidal charge into the cannons",
"catastrophe", "fiasco", or perhaps "self-immolation". (English has no shortage
of words to describe self-destructive behavior) Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
Rand,
Let's hope the story ends the same as well. From geology.about.com web site.
"The postmortem is still going on in 2003 as the shareholder lawsuits make their
slow way through the courts." Mike BMW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Sometimes LamLaw has a scoop that it is
worth mentioning here:
IBM still offers SCO
Linux and support for it. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
My preference is that everyone here reflect the values of the site while here.
One of those values is to treat others with some measure of respect. So far,
we've been able to do that, and it's been refreshing as a result. I like to
read your comments whenever I get a chance, and I have seen on other web sites
where others have commented that the comments on Groklaw are at a very high
level and well-worth reading.
In answer to questions, first, the only way I can think of to get to see the
document now would be to go to the
courthouse in Utah. But all you might see would be the one-page document
showing that Yarro signed
to accept service of the supoena. I don't know what that particular court
requires as to attaching the actual subpoena to the proof of service.
The court notation is a bit puzzling in one respect. It says it was served on
"Canopy Group, c/o Ralph Yarro",fixing the typo. Normally, you serve on an
individual. For example, if you want to make a person attend a depostion, so
you can ask them questions under oath, if the individual isn't a party to the
lawsuit, then you subpoena them to compel them to attend. If what you want is
papers, either delivered to you or the opportunity to go there and look through
them, then you'd normally send a subpoena duces tecum or a Request For
Inspection of Documents. Here's what law. com says in part about a subpoena
duces tecum: " a court order requiring a witness to bring documents in the
possession or under the control of the witness to a certain place at a certain
time. This subpena must be served personally on the person subpenaed. It is the
common way to obtain potentially useful evidence, such as documents and business
records, in the possession of a third party. "
As for a regular subpoena, law.com's dictionary says in part: "an order of the
court for a witness to appear at a particular time and place to testify and/or
produce documents in the control of the witness (if a "subpena duces tecum"). A
subpena is used to obtain testimony from a witness at both depositions
(testimony under oath taken outside of court) and at trial. Subpenas are usually
issued automatically by the court clerk but must be served personally on the
party being summoned."
You might want to look at "discovery" and "deposition" and "depose" in the
dictionary also. Just click on the icon.
So, bottom line is, I don't yet know the details, but I'm sure we will in time.
Exactly what IBM is asking for is still unclear, as is exactly who was served.
Whenever I don't write anything, it means I don't know yet or I don't know
enough to even make a public, educated guess. What I do know is that they are
interested in Canopy Group or someone there. The clerk putting it into the
system may have typed it oddly, or Utah is different than what I am used to, or
who knows? I'll surely tell you when I do know.
If I lived near the courthouse, I'd walk on by and try to get a look, but I
don't. All the details will eventually come out. Trials take time. They are
more like a mud flow than a raging torrent. So this detail is interesting, but
we just have to wait for more. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
"we have never said that we will bill or sue any user" story
"A large number of commercial Linux users could begin receiving [invoices] in
the next month or two.
"I would say that a batch in the neighbourhood of 1,000 or so would go out."
Does someone have a "SCO lies" to English dictonary, or is this like listening
to the Devil(or a lawyer)speaking?
SCO seems to change it's story, as fast as their stocks change hands.
But, of course we "know" the good people from Utah would not mislead us.
SCUM would never lie to all the reporters and SCUM Unixware fans at SCUM Forum
2003.
SCUM would not try to sell the us state of Utah, or anything else they do not
legally own.
If someone tried to sell something that was not their property, without due
course of law,
our government would arrest them, am I right??? Please tell me I am right. (or
wake me up)
The best explanation I can reason out is: someone in Lindon, Utah has a
birthmark of sixes. :)
I appologize for the above rant.
nm nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
I caught this on Lamlaw (who is turn are pointing at Groklaw)
On this page it
would seem that IBM is still selling systems with SCO Unix installed.
I wondered: Since one of the arguments that is popular goes "SCO still allows
downloads of Linux, so they are still giving out code under the GPL" I wonder if
IBM is shooting itself in the foot on it's patent infringment claims. After all,
if SCO is infringing of 4 IBM patents and IBM continues to sell these SCO
products, are they not saying it's OK for SCO to infringe? It's the same
argument. Shadowman99[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
1000 invoices? Just more FUD I reckon.
If they are ever sent, they will arrive in corporate America's accounts
departments with a letter requesting confidentially. Receiving and even paying
the invoice is not illegal, that is, not a whistleblowing activity, and
financial activities (and even numbers of servers) are always confidential
anyway, so how many accountants and their clerks are going to break their
contracts of employment and let us see the paper?
SCO have said they are researching their targets before choosing them. They will
pick businesses where the CEO and others with publicity power are unlikely to
break ranks and publish or comment, for various reasons.
We may never know who got the invoices :-( Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
A new disease -- SCO-lie-osis?
Sorry. Frank Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
I just had a thought. Would it be possible to lobby federal officials to
prosecute SCO in criminal court for violation of copyright law? After all,
whether the GPL is valid or not, SCO's actions in continuing to distribute Linux
while refusing to honor the GPL are in violation of copyright law (since nothing
other than the GPL offers them permission to distribute it). Therefore, SCO has
no logically sound basis under which they could argue that their ongoing
violation of copyright law lacks criminal intent. (I suppose SCO could try an
ostrich defense, but I don't think deliberately sticking one's head in the sand
to avoid seeing the obvious generally flies in court.)
And if it would be possible to push for criminal prosecution, how would one go
about trying to convince the federal government to prosecute? Nathan Barclay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
Shadowman99:
IBM is listing SCO Linux (or OpenLinux, whatver it's called these days). Not
any of the products they are suing over. Adam Ruth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
Shadowman99: No IBM does not sell machines with SCO Unix. IBM does not
distribute Linux. But they do support people who runs SCO OpenLinux on their
machines, as they support RedHat, Suse and others. Magnus Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
I called the United States District Court, District of Utah at (801) 524-6100. I
asked if they could fax me Document # 31-1 from case number 2:03cv00294, which
is the return of service executed. They said that that type of documement is
not scanned, so I'd have to pay per page to have it mailed to me. It's only a
few pages at $0.50 a piece. I didn't order it since I wouldn't know what to do
with it. Anyone here knowledgable enough to want to order it? Ben Ploni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
Shadowman, I think you'll find on that page that IBM are selliing Linux software
which runs on OpenLinux.
Slightly more interesting is this page http://w
ww-3.ibm.com/software/integration/websphere/mqplatforms/ but here you'll
find it's a third party, Willow Tech., who have licensed WMQ for use on
OpenServer, UnixWare and other minority Unix platforms. Again no licensing
problems. Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Nathan Barclay:
http://radio.weblogs.com
/0120124/2003/06/15.html Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Google now has real-time news alerts! http://www.google.com/newsal
erts?q=sco+linux
Now you can feed you habit as it happens if you don't mind supplying an email
address. cc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
"PJ, can we have a comment on why subpeona not discovery motion"
I did some quick research and found this: A discovery motion is when you've
tried to get info and the other side won't produce it. That is the short
answer. You see it a lot in criminal cases. There was one mentioned in the DOJ v MS case (maybe more,
but that's one I quickly found). Or, in drunk driving cases, all the defendant
gets is the police report. He or she wants more than that, so the individual
will ask for other things, like when the radar gun was last serviced, whether
any witnesses have a criminal record, and things like that. If not produced,
then a discovery motion can be filed to get the info.
In a civil case, a nonparty, like a newspaper, for example, might file one, or
if you've served the other side with interrogatories, which are questions for
them to answer, and their answers, in your opinion, aren't forthcoming. See here. More info here and this pdf if you want the
long answer.
It's a request for the judge to make them give you what you want. A subpoena is
the normal way to let the other side know what you want in the normal course of
discovery, and unless there are problems, the judge isn't involved. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
Shadowman99:
IBM's patent countersuit request for permanent injunction barring sales is for
UnixWare and other non-Linux SCOldera products.
Were IBM distributing Caldera Linux there would be no laches, waivers or
estoppel created for IBM by that act of distributing (because they're
distributing a different product, NOT UnixWare). Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
Those links don't work, so here's DOJ v MS:
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f8600/8684.htm
www.adr.af.mil/afadr/library/docs/eo12988.html
www.constitution.org/pro-se/lr-p1-5.htm
www.reverepublishing.com/California/CA_DUI_Sample.pdf pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
This link will take you to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
http://www.l
aw.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm#chapter_v
Look under:
V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY
As you can see this material encompasses rules 26 - 37.
A read through these rules first might save the beautiful and gracious
Pamela J. some keyboard work. gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
If indeed, SCO does send out a few thousand invoices, and indeed, does pursue
legal action against one or more of the parties, is it possible that SCO is
opening itself up for a class action? Monkey[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
Shadowman99: IBM is suing SCO over all of it's OS products. They have
counterclaimed patent infringements involving Unixware and Open Unix, and
violation of the GPL with Open Linux. That means that SCO should no longer be
distributing any copyrighted code or works that IBM has released under a GPL
license.In this regard, I don't think that SCO can ignore IBM's collaboration on
things besides the kernel. To be on the safe side they ought to inquire about
some of these things (after all they'd expect Linus to do that much, wouldn't
they?):
http://oss.software.ibm
.com/linux/collaborations/
http://oss.software.ibm.com/li
nux/patches/
I think that also might preclude the distribution of lots of things in Unixware,
or any other product that uses a full install of Open Linux (sans kernel) with
the "Linux Kernel Personality". Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
IANAL but this is what I generally know about subpoenas.
Subpoena to Testify --- "Ad Testificandum"--- i.e. oral depositions and
testimony in Court hearings.
Subpoena for Records --- "Duces Tecum" --- i.e. records, documents
and tangible information.
Courts liberally issue blank subpoenas to the parties with the understanding
that they should not be abused i.e. harassment.
NEVER ignore a subpoena, but if a person receiving a subpoena doesn't like it
he can file a "Motion to Quash" with their facts on why the subpoena
should not be enforced. The requesting party can then file a response
"Motion to Enforce Compliance" with their reasons why the subpoena should be
obeyed. The Court will then rule whether it is proper to enforce the subpoena
or some part of it. And so it goes with the rulings on the "Motions for
Discovery". gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
SCO
evidence falls flat in Sydney bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
Just random thought,
if Novell waived SCO's right to terminate IBM's SysV license, IBM could still be
legally using SysV to check out SCO's claims. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
GandhiCon Three
and the Antics of SCO bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
pj,
Someone should check further into the 305,274 shares registered and sold on
July, of which the majority was sold by the Canopy group or people associated
with Vultus (a Canopy subsidiary at that point). I believe that this has the
effect of allowing Canopy to sell SCO stock at the (inflated) $11 per share
level to members of the public, while injecting Vultus assets (and perhaps some
cash) into SCO. Maybe this is what IBM is investigating -- the sales at the
inflated price.
You will find details in the SCO S-3 filing of 7/8/03 on the SEC's Edgar search
engine - click www.sec.gov and find the "search for company filing's"
button.
-Undisclosed person Undisclosed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
Can SCO send the invoices and use the estimated revenues to inflate their
profits? I seem to remember Enron/Worldcom doing something similar.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
ftp://ftp.calde
ra.com/pub/OpenLinux311/Workstation/SRPMS/ Dan M Nalven[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
From http://www.sco.com/scos
ource/linuxlicensefaq.html
"If I am running SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux do I need to obtain a SCO IP
License for Linux?
Yes. SCO will distribute an IP License for Linux to all SCO Linux users. To
receive this license, you must register your SCO Linux license on the website.
If you already registered the SCO Linux license, you must update your
registration to be eligible for the license. This special license is limited to
the right to use SCO IP with SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux. It is not valid
for any other distribution of Linux. Unlike the SCO IP license for a non-SCO
Linux distribution, these licenses do not have to be registered after they are
issued. The only registration required is the initial registration (or update)
of the SCO Linux license."
There are 2 important points here. First if you have bought SCO / Caldera Linux
you aren't being asked to pay again for the license. Quite what would constitute
only using it with SCO / Caldera Linux isn't clear - maybe you have to use a SCO
prebuilt kernel but then they run into all sorts of GPL problems.
Secondly, you normally have to register the license after you buy it. This is
because they want to make sure a proper contract is formed with anyone who buys
it agreeing to the license terms.
All in all I think they were forced to publicise the license program before they
were ready and when they looked a bit closer they realised that the GPL caused
them all sorts of problems with it and that is why they haven't sold anyone a
license. Has anyone who has phoned about a license had their call returned? Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
sorry about the previous post (my mouse button was stuck and came unstuck on the
submit button).
my point being, with the ftp address, that sco(caldera) is still offering a
linux distro, ostensibly to support its' current customers. it is only offered
piecemeal by file, *.src.rpm, but the directory list is extensive. per the gpl,
they are required to offer these sources for three years. could this be a
reason? Dan M Nalven[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
> Can SCO send the invoices and use the estimated revenues to inflate their
profits?
I don't know, but presumably their auditors would have to say their accounting
methods were okay.
The 10-Qs should tell us if they have a lot of revenue that they haven't yet
collected. So if it happened on a big scale, somebody would presumably
notice?
IANAL but BTW, one article I read suggested that: for patents - if I remember
correct, laches defense, if successfully applied, might stop past damages, but
they don't allow infringing behavior to continue. Link has been posted by
somebody, maybe even me, before. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
No press releases from SCO for ten days. Maybe they are silent because they are
negotiating with IBM? They are going to have to do that at some point, I don't
think they are crazy enough to go to trial.
It wouldn't surprise me if they have decided that there is no point in waiting
longer to settle. The license plan was released almost a month ago, and we can
be pretty sure it has been a total failure. I say that because if they were
making any significant amount of money from it, McBride would be boasting about
it every day (by my calculation, if just one percent of the server and desktops
were licensed, SCO would get 49 million).
Also, the press has been turning against SCO lately. So maybe SCO has decided
it is time to cut their losses and settle. david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
<< "If I am running SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux do I need to obtain a SCO
IP License for Linux? Yes. SCO will distribute an IP License for Linux to all
SCO Linux users >>
Surely that would constute an attempt to impose extra conditions after purchase
and hence is totally unenforceable? After all, if the initial purchase and
install did not require this license, how can SCO possibly now require a new
license (even a free one)? Answer, they can't and anyone bought a Caldera Linux
distro and now agrees to this new license (and its extra conditions) is a
fool! whoever[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
Chris Priest,
You say that everyone who gets invoices will keep them confidential. Maybe, but
I bet, the way things go today, somebody will remove the identifying information
and post it anonymously to the web (with a notice to Slashdot).
But the more important thing is that invoices will for sure provoke a
class-action counter suit. Big corporations don't like to be pushed around. That
is why I think it is a bluff and SCO won't actually send them. david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Adam,
IANAL but I always found the idea that SCO would successfully be able to sue one
of their customers for buying and use SCO's own Linux version, to be more that
slightly ludicrous.
Let's imagine there really is something in SCO's Linux that infringes SCO's
copyright.
Now the only reason that a customer can buy a SCO Linux, containing this
infringing material - is because SCO themselves, offered it, marketed it, sold
it, and distributed it. And remember SCO are supposed to be the experts.
The customer then gets its and uses it under the terms under which it was sold
(GPL). The customer simply believes what SCO had told them, at the time that the
customer bought.
If there's a fault here, I'd say that it seems to me, that the fault is with SCO
for offering the infringing product to their customer (even if the fault is
limited to failure to check what they are selling). The customer merely
accepted SCO's offer, under SCO's then terms.
Now I know that SCO have said they're not going after their previous Linux
customers, at least for money, (although they do seem to want to impose a new
license)...
But the fact they even flet it necessary to say that, is just so bizarre.
What's next? Will the burger bar, announce that they won't sue me, for buying a
1/4 pound burger, which they later discovered was actually 5/16 pound? quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Hey, here is a thought. Some people think McBride really believes that that SCO
code is in Linux because of the pattern-recognition software analysis that found
a million lines of common code.
But I bet anything the outside experts (three separate teams, SCO says) who are
running the automated search are all real smart techy types, and a lot of them
are coders themselves, and so they know the claim that this proves the code is
stolen are totally bogus. They know the matches don't mean anything. david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
I thought this quite revealing
http://www.i
tnews.com.au/storycontent.cfm?ID=10&Art_ID=12831
Kieran O’Shaughnessy, managing director of SCO Group in Australia, said he
could not answer any ‘technical’ or ‘legalistic’ questions about the examples of
code.
‘But Linux is an unauthorised derivative of Unix and there is significant
Unix code in Linux ... some 1,000,000 lines,’ he said.
And
He said Linux developers had been guilty of literal copying, obfuscation, and
direct derivation of copyright Unix code but he was not in a position to offer
any further evidence countering technical objections to the validity of the
examples of allegedly misappropriated code SCO had produced. ‘The marketing guy
always gets it,’ O’Shaughnessy said.
So basically, are we just supposed to accept SCO's claims even though their
examples have been debunked, or at least disputed?
And we're supposed to feel sorry for the marketing guy, who makes these kind of
claims? quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
david, I wouldn't have thought you need pattern recognition if you basically
just assert that everything IBM (and maybe other AT&T licensees) did, is
automatically infringing.
I think this must be the basis for the million or millions of type claims.
AFAIK, some of the things that SCO think infringing, aren't even in the AT&T
code base - example: JFS. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
if i understand the gpl correctly if someone like sco took gpl code and
inserted into their code like sys5 would that mean sys5 is then required to be
gpl'd? brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
david l. stated:
"No press releases from SCO for ten days."
Do you have any idea how hard it is for SCO to track what lies they have told
already, that is the reason it's always a bad idea to lie
"Maybe they are silent because they are negotiating with IBM?"
SCO;"Can't we be friends?" IBM;"No"
"I don't think they are crazy enough to go to trial"
I do, SCO is dead set on stealing Linux or going out Enron style.
To be ignored is not what they want, SCO wants to make sure they earn every
penny Bill Gates gave them.
quatermass stated:
"I don't know, but presumably their auditors would have to say their accounting
methods were okay."
Would that be Author Anderson?
I wonder if SCO will send a Linux invoice the German Courts? :)
nm nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
This weekend I wrote a simple c program coupled with a bash shell script.
I have a Celeron 1.2 GHZ with 512 MBYTES of ram.
I obtained the old, old Unix 32v tree here: http://www.tuhs.org/archive_sites.
html
I compared 32v with the source tree for linux-2.4.21 that I'm running
currently.
Now I'm dumber than dog-poop and my Celeron is ancient hardware.
In less than eight hours my program identified the offending code that SCO at
Forum2003 claimed
was infringed by Linux. What do you think real programmers with teraflop big
iron and access to SysVr4
source code know about infringing code in Linux ?
Here's the offending code without whitespace from my program:
src1 module /root/prgm/mydiff/mydiff/lin/ate_utils.c
src2 module /root/prgm/mydiff/mydiff/uni/malloc.c
src2 src1 string
00009 00082 *Inamap,theaddressesareincreasingandthe
00010 00083 *lististerminatedbya0size.
00013 00084 *Algorithmisfirst-fit.
00016 00038 structmap*mp;
00018 00091 registerunsignedinta;
00019 00092 registerstructmap*bp;
00019 00128 registerstructmap*bp;
00021 00099 if(bp->m_size>=size){
00022 00100 a=bp->m_addr;
00023 00101 bp->m_addr+=size;
00024 00102 if((bp->m_size-=size)==0){
00027 00105 (bp-1)->m_addr=bp->m_addr;
00027 00148 (bp-1)->m_addr=bp->m_addr;
00030 00111 return(a);
00033 00118 return(0);
00042 00038 structmap*mp;
00043 00091 registerunsignedinta;
00045 00092 registerstructmap*bp;
00045 00128 registerstructmap*bp;
00046 00129 registerunsignedintt;
00053 00139 (bp-1)->m_size+=size;
00054 00143 if(a+size==bp->m_addr){
00055 00145 (bp-1)->m_size+=bp->m_size;
00056 00146 while(bp->m_size){
00058 00105 (bp-1)->m_addr=bp->m_addr;
00058 00148 (bp-1)->m_addr=bp->m_addr;
00059 00149 (bp-1)->m_size=bp->m_size;
00063 00155 if(a+size==bp->m_addr&&bp->m_size){
00064 00156 bp->m_addr-=size;
00065 00157 bp->m_size+=size;
00068 00167 t=bp->m_addr;
00069 00168 bp->m_addr=a;
00071 00170 t=bp->m_size;
00072 00171 bp->m_size=size; gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Dan M Nalven:
SCO's position is remarkable. They seem to be saying that they can violate US
TITLE 17 Copyrights and TITLE 35 Patents in order to continue supporting their
customers. That's odd since the Open Linux source code allows anyone to obtain
support somewhere else (quite legally).
Remember the only license they have to distribute IBM's IP is the GPL. They have
violated it's most basic provisions. IBM has put them on notice with it's
counterclaim 6, and asked for damages to be determined at trial.
Remember that SCO admits that IBM and Sequent own the RCU and NUMA copyrights
and patents. They seem to feel that TITLE 17 section 301 pre-empts state law
when it's applied to the terms of the GPL as if it were a contract. Why do they
think paragraph 2.01 of their AT&T Software License Agreement isn't pre-empted?
That is what their own trade secret and contract claims are based on.
htt
p://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/linux/papers/gpl.php
IBM has also counterclaimed that SCO's other OS products infringe on a number of
IBM's patents. If I were to hazard a guess about why IBM subpoened Canopy, I
would think it probably has something to do with the Asset Purchase Ageements
with Novell and Canopy's creative flair for complicating financial deals
unecessarily (who really owns exactly what?) SCO has made a number of claims
about "owning Unix", "the contract rights", "the title", "the rights to enforce
the patents", "the patents", and etc. IIRC someone here at Groklaw mentioned a
loan to SCO from Canopy that was secured with these "mysterious Unix rights" as
colateral. Obviously if IBM can prove that SCO has no standing because Novell
really did waive their rights to terminate the AIX license..... Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
nm - AA is not doing auditing for anyone AFAIK. Even if they were, and doing it
for SCO, it would be a huge unsupported jump to suggest that meant anything
improper.
I am thinking if they were to add these invoices to revenue, without collecting
- then it would show up in increased receivables in the following 10-Q.
- I'm not an accountant or auditor, but I'd be surprised if auditors were happy
to add unsolicited invoices that will (probably) never be collected, straight
into a revenue total. There are usually/often complex rules and procedures about
revenue recognition... for example, for ongoing large projects, revenue often
gets recognized in stages as the project progresses, not in one lump on the day
the order arrives.
- If SCO were to do something funny with revenue recognition, the auditors would
see it and probably raise it. This would probably mean restating revenues. And
for a NASDAQ company, that could likely mean a shareholder lawsuit, and even
possibly SEC investigation.
- I think SCO surely knows that, so it seems unlikely to me, that they would
knowingly do anything funny with revenue recognition. quatermass - SCO delenda
est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
Brenda: Yes, legally if SCO (or anyone else) took a GPL'd piece of code, used it
as the foundation for a derivative
work or otherwise included it in their own work and (here's the important part)
distributed the modified version,
then yes, the distributed modified version must be licensed under the GPL. The
theory is that, seeing as how you got
the code and the associated freedoms through the goodness of the coders, you
must pass these freedoms on to the
recipients of the code as well.
Note that the important part is "distributed the modified version". One can
modify a GPL'd program till Kingdom Come
and not license the modified version under GPL if the modified version is not
distributed (for example, I could
download the GNOME desktop, modify it with custom behavior and graphics and use
it strictly as an internal product
in my business and never have to license my changes under GPL; however, if I
then decide to pass out the modified
version for others to use, at that point I have to GPL my changes).
Since the whole point of SCO producing SysV is to distribute the OS, then yes,
if SCO were to incorporate any GPL'd
code in their SysV product and distribute it to customers, then they would have
to GPL SysV. There in fact have been
some reported rumblings to the effect that exactly that has happened, that SCO
has put some Linux code in their
SysV product, but AFAIK that has not been even formally put forth, much less
substantiated.
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
Gamout:
How many similar regions did you find? Would you mind posting what you found
somewhere? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
someone was talking about ignorance being a more likely scenario and that is
the only think that really fits all the facts. as we know them
ibm has deep pockets but they over played being bought out cause they insulted
ibm
then gpl is invalid and all the other wild claims
it just fits so nicely with stupidity brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
ra:
Sorry I stopped my program after finding ate_utils.c / malloc.c. In it's
present
brute force form my program would require about 24 - 36 hours on my Celeron
150 MFLOP box to exhaust the 2.4.21 kernel source tree since there's about 3.48
million
raw lines to examine against the 32v source tree. Clever programming could
reduce the time
factor by probably 100 or more. One of Big Blue's super computers could do it in
seconds. gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
If they are ever sent, they will arrive in corporate America's
accounts departments with a letter requesting confidentially. Receiving and even
paying the invoice is not illegal, that is, not a whistleblowing activity, and
financial activities (and even numbers of servers) are always confidential
anyway, so how many accountants and their clerks are going to break their
contracts of employment and let us see the paper? Suppose a
party with whom I do not have an existing business relationship sends me a 2
pieces of paper in the US Mail. One is marked "Invoice". The other contains
some text telling me to keep the "Invoice" confidential.Now exactly why would
I be obliged to keep the "Invoice" confidential? I have no contract with the
sender of the paper. There is no pre-existing agreement requiring me to do
anything, or not do anything, with the first piece of paper. Particularly since
it was sent to me unsolicited via US Mail, it is mine to do with as I please.
Throw it away, keep it, give it away, publish it in the New York Times if I
please. How would I be violating any "contract of employment"? Cranky
Observer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
quatermass wrote:
"1. If you talk (about Linux) publicly, it'll get you on the hitlist (although
I'm not sure how they intend to figure out how much for)"
Hasn't stopped me from talking about Linux publicly. Actually, I e-mailed SCO
and sort of dared them to send me an invoice, mentioning all of the Kernel 2.4
distros I had and use. Plus, I have all of the UnitedLinux source, so I am sure
I am on SCOs list. Haven't seen an invoice yet. If I DO get an invoice, the
first thing I will do is talk to my state's AG's office about it. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
"What's next? Will the burger bar, announce that they won't sue me, for buying a
1/4 pound burger, which they later discovered was actually 5/16 pound?"
quatermass
Actually, they discovered that their secret sauce extends the average life
expectancy by ten years. Since you are now living ten extra years due to their
intellectual property, you owe them for all the money you would receive during
this period when you would otherwise be deceased.
:) J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
After following the last few weeks events, and reading comments here and
elsewhere, I think that the Hammer is starting to come down onto SCO, they know
it, and they are desperately casting about for something to do next.
About the subpeona: IBM is playing this very, very carefully. Instead of
rebutting SCO publically, or flailing about legally counterattacking SCO, IBM's
lawyers have been carefully documenting the events, doing research, and are now
attacking the affliction at it's source: Canopy Group.
All in all I have to say that at this point, things are looking very bad not
just for SCO's execs, but for the Canopy Group all in all. IBM has a huge amount
of experience at fighting this kind of battle, and it shows. SCO has placed a
hand into what it thought was a dead hornets nest, only to discover a live rabid
weasel inside.
I wonder when those execs at SCO are next planning to take a "vacation" and to
which non-extradition country it will be :)
Thanks everyone for the comments. BTW, I came here from a link lower down on
today's article from Slashdot; Tsu, you should post this to the COLA newsgroup
also (sorry if you already did and I didn't notice, there's so much crap on
there right now it's hard to find the interesting posts - time to create a new
filter :)
See ya, McBride and Co. It'll be a pleasure to watch you go down in flames. Oh,
BTW, Darl, Chris, etc...you lost another customer. We're switching away from SCO
OpenServer at work in two weeks. Long, long overdue.
IBM has made up for their tactics in the 80s; apology accepted, IBM :)
With respect,
DarkHills DarkHills[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
As found by bibdicap on yahoo.
It seems that SCO has found there second licencee. fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
Oops, bindicap not bibicap. fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/unidlookup/8A82F436CD6D4CA4482
56D97000A5F6C?OpenDocument
"Stowell declined to reveal the identity of the new customer or say how many
other customers SCO may have signed up"
Another secret customer. Oh boy. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
"I'm in awe of his fluent weasel-speak."
Tsu Dho Nimh
Darl is right up there with The Sphinx, G.W.B., 99 out of 100 Lawyers, and last
but not least, Satan himself.
How someone can tell a blatant lie that is, technically (semi) truthful is
beyond my grasp.
I believe that (lack) is a good thing about me, I hope I never become that
fluent in "weasel-speak".
Note: I did not mean this as any flame to Tsu Dho Nimh, just to Darl where it
belongs! nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
"But Linux is an unauthorised derivative of Unix and there is significant Unix
code in Linux ... some 1,000,000 lines,’ he said."
Again, look at the wording. "unauthorised derivative of Unix" - not SysV. SCO
again try to conflate a casual use of "derivative" (based on) with the legal
copyright meaning (containing copyrighted code from), knowing that an
"unauthorised derivative" in the first sense is as illegal as an "unauthorised
biography". And there is Unix code in Linux - the BSD-licenced code. Everyone
knows that. (Not to mention SCO's definition of "Unix Code" as anything written
ever by a Unix licensee.) Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
Cranky Observer, I can only speak for the UK situation but if you have no
existing contractual relationship with SCO then you owe them no legal duty of
confidentiality. They can request confidentiality, but the request ranks
alongside the similar request made in the Nigerian scam emails.
To clarify: If you contacted SCO and *asked* for a quote, and they said "we'll
send you a quote, but it's confidential" and you agreed, then that could create
a duty of confidentiality. But an unsolicited invoice arrives without any prior
agreement on your part.
P.S. When your marketing people say they'd sold "at least one" of something, we
all know what that means. ;) If people were queueing up to buy SCO's licences
they wouldn't bother even talking about invoices. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 02:02 AM EDT |
From lamlaw.com this is in Mettler's usual over-the-top language but, as often,
a basically valid point.
"The most interesting question is why Eolas Technologies does not now send $25
invoices to hundreds of millions of Microsoft customers now that a patent
violation has been proven for Internet Explorer. I mean if you read some of the
silly commentary out there in regard to SCO, as soon as SCO wins their case,
Linux customers have to pay up, right? Is that not what some are saying? Hog
wash.
"Certainly if SCO can claim that Linux customers owe them money (or even send
out invoices) to get a clean license when no such IP claims have been proven in
court, then Eolas Technology should be able to send out some invoices of their
own, right?
"Well. Maybe someone should ask them about that. I think that is about 5
billion dollars in receivables. And, they even have a patent judgment,
right?
"As with the SCO case, it does not work that way. And, for good reason.
"Whether it is patent, copyright, trade secret or contract law, innocent
consumers are not liable for possible or even proven IP violations. Unless,
that is, they themselves have violated the rights. But, when SCO sent out 1,500
letters to Linux customers they clearly did not investigate in order to
determine is any one of them much less all of them had engaged in any IP
violations.
"The other reason is that the judgment now reached against Microsoft compensates
Eolas for their rights. Or, if appealed, it goes away. Either way customers
should not be approached unless extortion is the objective as is obviously the
case with SCO.
"It is extortion and the disruption of the Linux market that drives SCO.
Protection of IP rights or even contract rights is not important to SCO at all.
Those rights can be protected without even mentioning Linux customers." r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 02:32 AM EDT |
J.F., In reality, the secret sauce does extend the life
expectancy, but only if you're a burger.
It is fatal to ordinary humans, but the management have placed a gag order on
the media by vice of the DMCA.
Share and enjoy! ;) Wesley Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
DarkHills wrote:
"SCO has placed a hand into what it thought was a dead hornets nest, only to
discover a live rabid weasel inside. "
Nope- it was a live rabid penguin <G>. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
Hey Gumout, would it be possible to post your code (a binary would be nice too)
and the appropriate links to SCO's older stuff someplace so those with an
interest can play around with the different code bases? Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
Alex:
I'm working on a new bash shell script using only well known unix utilities
I'll
post it if it eventually works right. A person more familiar with "regex"
regular expressions
could whip up a suitable progam in short order. The guys that wrote awk, sed,
tr, grep, find
were very sharp programmers and the utilities should run as fast as any custom c
binary.
Perl might be the most suitable of all but I don't speak much perl.
Ultimate success may depend upon strategy:
1)Which modules in the distribution are relevent i.e. could possibly infringe
old unix ?
2)Blank lines and white space should be probably be filtered out.
3)Probably most pre-processor directives i.e. #include<> #ifdef #define
should be filtered out.
4)The beginning and end of fuctions often have a line with a single "{" or "}"
should they be filtered out ?
A well planned strategy could reduce the text comparisons required by a large
factor.
I'm googling to find any hints from the gurus. After pre-processing a code
module might look like this:
/*
*linux/kernel/info.c
*
*Copyright(C)1992DarrenSenn
*/
/*Thisimplementsthesysinfo()systemcall*/
asmlinkagelongsys_sysinfo(structsysinfo*info)
structsysinfoval;
memset((char*)&val,0,sizeof(structsysinfo));
cli();
val.uptime=jiffies/HZ;
val.loads[0]=avenrun[0]<<(SI_LOAD_SHIFT-FSHIFT);
val.loads[1]=avenrun[1]<<(SI_LOAD_SHIFT-FSHIFT);
val.loads[2]=avenrun[2]<<(SI_LOAD_SHIFT-FSHIFT);
val.procs=nr_threads-1;
sti();
si_meminfo(&val);
si_swapinfo(&val);
unsignedlongmem_total,sav_total;
unsignedintmem_unit,bitcount;
/*Ifthesumofalltheavailablememory(i.e.ram+swap)
*islessthancanbestoredina32bitunsignedlongthen
*wecanbebinarycompatiblewith2.2.xkernels.Ifnot,
*well,inthatcase2.2.xwasbrokenanyways...
*
*-ErikAndersen*/
mem_total=val.totalram+val.totalswap;
if(mem_total<val.totalram||mem_total1){
bitcount++;
mem_unit>>=1;
sav_total=mem_total;
mem_total<<=1;
if(mem_total<sav_total)
gotoout;
/*Ifmem_totaldidnotoverflow,multiplyallmemoryvaluesby
*val.mem_unitandsetitto1.Thisleavesthingscompatible
*with2.2.x,andalsoretainscompatibilitywithearlier2.4.x
*kernels...*/
val.mem_unit=1;
val.totalram<<=bitcount;
val.freeram<<=bitcount;
val.sharedram<<=bitcount;
val.bufferram<<=bitcount;
val.totalswap<<=bitcount;
val.freeswap<<=bitcount;
val.totalhigh<<=bitcount;
val.freehigh<<=bitcount;
out:
if(copy_to_user(info,&val,sizeof(structsysinfo)))
return-EFAULT;
return0; gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
WildBill:
"Nope- it was a live rabid penguin <G>."
LOL, thanks. We penguins will show them what it means to be serious about what
we believe in...
DH DarkHills[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
gumout wrote:
"Ultimate success may depend upon strategy:
1)Which modules in the distribution are relevent i.e. could possibly infringe
old unix ?
2)Blank lines and white space should be probably be filtered out.
3)Probably most pre-processor directives i.e. #include<> #ifdef #define
should be filtered out.
4)The beginning and end of fuctions often have a line with a single "{" or "}"
should they be filtered out ?
A well planned strategy could reduce the text comparisons required by a large
factor. I'm googling to find any hints from the gurus. After pre-processing a
code module might look like this: "
I would use a little bit different strategy, and Perl, not c is probably the
better choice. Anyways, here it is.
1. Forget about sorting out relevant modules- check them all.
2. Compare the Unix source against Linux- but only looking for matches in
comments. If a programmer is going to steal the code, he'll probably steal the
comments too, because programmers hate to take the time to write good comments.
Flag any occurences so they can be printed out and examined. If you wanted,
compare the function the comment is in and look for a match in the Linux code.
3. Compare functions, or more precisely, definitions/prototypes. You could get
creative in the parsing here- look for identical matches first, then parse and
ignore the names and compare (essentially, even if the function has a different
name but uses the same arguments it might be a copy). Flag any finds, then
check for identical code, probably by comparing the first 20 or so lines of the
functions. Flag any finds so you can print the list and compare by hand.
An approach like this would save alot of processing time and has a high
probability of finding stolen code. Comparing functions makes sense- I can't
imagine the utility of stealing just small bits and pieces of a function- why
not grab it all.
Anyways, tell me what you think of this approach. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
Oh, I meant to say to compare comments first, then compare function
prototypes/definitions....also, if a function has already been scanned while
examining comments, it doesn't need scanned again. I re-read what I wrote and
that was a little vague. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|