decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Forbes' Dan Lyons Finds Out Plenty About SCO, Including the 6th Party Subpoenaed
Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:23 PM EST

Well, finally, a journalist asks the right questions and does some real digging. You won't believe it until you read it, so go to Forbes this exact minute and feast your eyes on, yes, Daniel Lyons' article, because he has figured SCO out. I think they messed with the wrong guy.

And he found out that the sixth entity on SCO's subpoena list is Digeo, maker of Linux-based TV set-top boxes. Huh? I know, you were hoping it was me, but you'll have to accept it: SCO has subpoenaed a TV set-top box maker instead. Why Digeo? SCO spokesmen seem not to know. Or else the cat got their tongue or something.

Here's how the article starts out:

"The legal battle between SCO Group and IBM is taking another ugly lurch forward.

"On Nov. 11, the same day that Forbes reported that IBM had sent subpoenas to investors and analysts who supported SCO --and a day in which SCO shares suffered a 10% drop--SCO fired back, telling the court it would issue subpoenas to Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux free operating system kernel, and Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation."

It wasn't lost on Lyons that he had talked with SCO VP Christopher Sontag just hours before they went to get their own subpoenas and yet Sontag never breathed a word of it. Instead Sontag complained about IBM sending subpoenas to investors and analysts who supported SCO. So, why didn't he mention their own plans to do a tit-for-tat? Sontag says lamely that their lawyers hadn't yet told them what they were planning.

Right. That is exactly how the law works. Lawyers make vital decisions on a case without discussing it with their clients. Not.

You really should be careful what you tell a competent journalist. They have ways of finding out the truth, if they are motivated, and if you tell them fibs, it tends to motivate:

"But the 'Who's on first?' act is tough to swallow since it turns out SCO notified IBM of its plans to seek discovery from these parties more than a month ago, on Oct. 5. And SCO told the court about its plans at 4:34 P.M. on Nov. 11, only hours after Sontag spoke to Forbes."

Lyons contacted rms and Linus and got reactions from them both, as well as Transmeta, OSDL, Novell, and Digeo. Digeo naturally hadn't a clue why they made the cut. Linus, of course, tells a joke, and Richard patiently explains his exact position, which is, in part, that the FSF isn't involved in a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, and then he adds:

"'I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial,' Stallman says."

Surprised? Really, I'd love to print the whole thing, but Forbes wouldn't like it. They are in business, after all, so hop on over and have some fun.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )