f



SCO v IBM: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel(!)

SCO takes a well-deserved bruising:

  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205143009441

SCO delays Q4 earnings statement:

  http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/031205/1008000399_1.html

How to get rich quick on SCO's pump-n-dump scam without legal risk:

  http://zgp.org/cgi-bin/scoloss.cgi

-- 
"Until we had this concept of Web services, software on the 
 Internet couldn't talk to other software on the Internet."
-- Bill Gates.  Chairman, Microsoft.  10/29/2003.
0
bogus6948 (285)
12/6/2003 12:15:18 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

34 Replies
621 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 8

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:15:18 -0700, in article
<news:cox9zc694ues$.t4aot7jnrxjq.dlg@40tude.net>, Jules Dubois wrote:

> SCO takes a well-deserved bruising:
> 
>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205143009441

Additional details:

  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205161348100

Oh, no!  There goes S C O!
Go, go!  Godzilla!

-- 
"Keep in mind that when people want to do a directory, when they 
 want to do a file server, they have to buy or install a ton of 
 other software on top of Linux."
 -- Bill Gates.  Chairman, Microsoft.
0
bogus6948 (285)
12/6/2003 12:22:28 AM
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:31:27 +0000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> 
> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
> sleeve.

Read the article dumass.

BOISES DIDN'T SHOW AT THE TRIAL !!!

DARL'S BROTHER (HAHAHAHAHA ) HAD TO REPRESENT THEM !!!!!


THE RATS ARE LEAVING THE SHIP !!!!!



0
jbailo (150)
12/6/2003 12:28:23 AM
I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".

Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?

http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/

"The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"

If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
theatrics.

Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
sleeve.
0
erik38 (8626)
12/6/2003 12:31:27 AM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
> 
> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
> 
> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
> 
> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on
> the copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
> 

Nice try, Erik. No second game

> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
> theatrics.
> 
> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up
> their sleeve.


I think it is quite easy. MS pumps enough money into SCO to keep this
charade up long enough until their "Longhorn MCD" shows up.
-- 
You're not my type.  For that matter, you're not even my species
�
0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
12/6/2003 12:41:23 AM
Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Jules Dubois mumbled this incantation:

> SCO takes a well-deserved bruising:
>
>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205143009441

Looks like they'll have a Merry Christmas and New Years:

   Thirty days brings us around January the 4th. This is just after the
   holidays.  The judge must have been pissed off mad not to give them
   an extra week or two.

> How to get rich quick on SCO's pump-n-dump scam without legal risk:
>
>   http://zgp.org/cgi-bin/scoloss.cgi

**Chuckle**

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
0
iso
12/6/2003 1:52:49 AM
Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Erik Funkenbusch mumbled this incantation:

> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
>
> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
>
> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/

You're really reaching for this one, aren't you? <grin>

> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
> theatrics.

I think Darl is walking a tightrope on the far boundary of the law.
He is well into the territory of outrageousness, though.

                  |||||||||
                  vvvvvvvvv ?
> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
> sleeve.

I agree.  But 20% of what SCO has on hand now is probably adequate
compensation for the legal team's time, maybe.  With a small probability
of a real score.

In any case, Darl has seen that his public theatrics really boost the
stock price of SCO, so he seems to be recycling this strategy.


-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
0
iso
12/6/2003 1:58:47 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Em S=C3=A1bado, 06 de Dezembro de 2003 00:31, Erik Funkenbusch escreveu=
:

> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.

LOL!

- --=20
Rui Malheiro
"Um outro mundo =C3=A9 poss=C3=ADvel"
..=20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0Tu76xZVe81Ht3gRApacAKCiSzvFZjYf2q5FwLsSvr3v7NBdiQCgqmfw
pWkW1U49L79AXajq/qRjhGI=3D
=3DKXQr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
rmalheiro (144)
12/6/2003 2:15:22 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:31:27 GMT,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
>
> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
>
> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
>
> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
> copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
>
> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
> theatrics.
>
> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
> sleeve.

Depends on how many $$$ MICROS~1 can funnel in to SCO. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0UhTd90bcYOAWPYRAmaiAJwJy501B7mZRuwKgu23G+cCXcLHKwCdFbHT
KZ1pLaOoU80du8jH9bYu4UQ=
=mobW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Pity the world isn't logical, merely rational.
	-- Kevin Martin in the Monastery 
0
warlock (9522)
12/6/2003 3:09:07 AM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in <epnbuvs7b66y$.dlg@funkenbusch.com> at December 5,
2003 07:31 pm

> 
> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
> sleeve.

My opinion is that you are thinking too deeply about this. You should
apply Occam's razor, it is simply a pump-n-dump scam nothing more.
They never had any delusions about winning the legal battle. All they
ever wanted is to drag it out as long as possible while they are
beating the PR drums and harvesting the idiots on the stock exchange.
From that point of view, they are extremely successful: SCOG went
from penny-stock to 20+ and it sustained above 16 for a very long
time without anything to backup their claims. That is quite a
performance to achieve! Darl is laughing all the way to the bank
while the open source community is licking their wounds.

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.
0
abuse2422 (57)
12/6/2003 5:07:39 AM
Ian Amuhton wrote:

> time without anything to backup their claims. That is quite a
> performance to achieve! Darl is laughing all the way to the bank
> while the open source community is licking their wounds.
> 

WAIT UNTIL THEY FOLLOW THE MONEY

0
jabailo2 (6594)
12/6/2003 5:12:39 AM
> 
> I honestly think of this as a cry for help, Erik.  Seriously, we can learn a
> lot from each other.  If none of these people are insane, why are they acting
> insanely?  If you can get over the cognitive dissonance, I can explain that.
> Reply to this post, and let's see where it goes.

REMEMBER THE HAL9000

IT WENT NUTZO BECAUSE THE SECRETE WAS TOO GREAT TO KEEP

0
jabailo2 (6594)
12/6/2003 5:31:54 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Erik Funkenbusch say:
>I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
>strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
>point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
>attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
>
>Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
>
>http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
>
>"The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
>copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
>
>If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
>doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
>risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
>that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
>especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
>theatrics.
>
>Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.

So far, you've done rather well.  The only point you've missed (rather
conspicuously, I must point out) is that they are following Microsoft is using
'control rights' to make demands on consumers beyond the price of the goods
they are selling.

>It's
>easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.

Then how does that explain Microsoft's huge investment in SCO by way of
unspecified licensing rights?

Do you realize that in the odd chance that Darl wins just like OJ did,
Microsoft may have already purchased the ability to put every honest Unix
vendor out of business?  Oh, probably not, I guess.  You don't get it, when it
comes to Microsoft.

>However, Boises isn't
>stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
>strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
>sleeve.

I honestly think of this as a cry for help, Erik.  Seriously, we can learn a
lot from each other.  If none of these people are insane, why are they acting
insanely?  If you can get over the cognitive dissonance, I can explain that.
Reply to this post, and let's see where it goes.
-- 
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003!  Why can't I teleport?!? ***
                           -- Louis Black
0
tmax (605)
12/6/2003 5:33:28 AM
Somewhere around the time of 12/05/2003 16:31, the world stopped and
listened as Erik Funkenbusch contributed this to humanity:

> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
> 
> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
> 
> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
> 
> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
> copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
> 
> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
> theatrics.

It really depends on how perceptive the judge is.  If or when she
figures out that SCO is using her courtroom for theatrics, and how far
along in the case that she figures it out, will determine how pissed off
she will be and what sanctions she will impose on SCO.  Probably jail
time for the company officers on a contempt of court charge.

> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
> sleeve.

Wow...I never thought that I would hear you say that.  It's probably all
smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very educational about the
standing of SCO anyways.  SCO wants IBM to provide all 40 MILLION lines
of AIX code to SCO so that SCO can find the evidence to support their
lawsuit against IBM?

SCO filed the suit because they claim to have found evidence of contract
violations.  When a suit is filed, the burden of proof is on the entity
making the filing.  So SCO will have to show the court exactly where
these violations are, and they also have to show that IBM was the one
who did it.

Some interesting things that I noticed:

If SCO has already found violations, then why do they need to look at
AIX source code?

Another interesting thing is this.  SCO has acknowledged in court that
the code that IBM has contributed to Unix (ie dirivitve work/code/etc)
belongs to IBM, but there are contractual obligations to what IBM can do
with their own code.  To me that is quite significant because that means
that there is no copyright or trade secret violations because IBM owns
the code in question and has officially released it to Linux under the GPL.

Think about that.  So whatever violations that SCO claims that IBM made,
was with IBM's own code.  That means that the entire suit comes down to
a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, and the copyright thing is a
moot point because IBM owns the copyright and said that it was OK
because they contributed the code to Linux under the GPL.  So the
license fees that SCO wants to charge is out the window too because SCO
doesn't own the code.

But, all of this is just my twisted way of thinking, so I could be wrong
on one or more aspects of this.  In other words, I am not a lawyer, but
I probably should have been.

-- 
Daniel Rudy

Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.

0
dcrudy (487)
12/6/2003 7:58:02 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Daniel Rudy say:
>Somewhere around the time of 12/05/2003 16:31, the world stopped and
>listened as Erik Funkenbusch contributed this to humanity:
>
>> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
>> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
>> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
>> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
>> 
>> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
>> 
>> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
>> 
>> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
>> copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
>> 
>> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
>> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
>> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
>> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
>> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
>> theatrics.
>
>It really depends on how perceptive the judge is.  If or when she
>figures out that SCO is using her courtroom for theatrics, and how far
>along in the case that she figures it out, will determine how pissed off
>she will be and what sanctions she will impose on SCO.

You see, that's why this kind of shit happens, because judges aren't allowed
to let how pissed off they are determine what sanctions they impose.

>Probably jail
>time for the company officers on a contempt of court charge.

An attractive fantasy, but still....

>> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
>> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
>> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
>> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
>> sleeve.
>
>Wow...I never thought that I would hear you say that.  It's probably all
>smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very educational about the
>standing of SCO anyways.  SCO wants IBM to provide all 40 MILLION lines
>of AIX code to SCO so that SCO can find the evidence to support their
>lawsuit against IBM?

That's the gist of it from what I've read.  Supposedly on the grounds that
they can't tell whether it violates trade secret or copyright law, they cannot
just provide the code they believe is being infringed by IBM, since they don't
know how it is being infringed.

Don't worry; the judge didn't buy it either.

>SCO filed the suit because they claim to have found evidence of contract
>violations.  When a suit is filed, the burden of proof is on the entity
>making the filing.  So SCO will have to show the court exactly where
>these violations are, and they also have to show that IBM was the one
>who did it.

That is where they are now, though this is recent, and still speculative.
Personally, I don't understand why IBM wouldn't turn over the 40 million lines
of AIX (or whatever), since the proceedings are protected.

>Some interesting things that I noticed:
>
>If SCO has already found violations, then why do they need to look at
>AIX source code?

Because they don't know where the violations are.  They know (supposedly) that
IBM 'must have' used their technology in AIX/Linux code, but how do you
specify which 'part' it is?  Let SCO have all of it, I say.  Most people here
would, too, I think, if they weren't so biased against one side of the case.
The only argument against doing so is that SCO might steal IBM's AIX code,
which to be honest isn't a very problematic scenario.  What are they supposed
to do with it, improve SCO without improving Linux, or what?

>Another interesting thing is this.  SCO has acknowledged in court that
>the code that IBM has contributed to Unix (ie dirivitve work/code/etc)
>belongs to IBM, but there are contractual obligations to what IBM can do
>with their own code.  To me that is quite significant because that means
>that there is no copyright or trade secret violations because IBM owns
>the code in question and has officially released it to Linux under the GPL.

It would be nice if there weren't pointed copyright or trade secret issues
involved in this case, but 'contract issues' really does involve any and all
of these.  Precedent is not concerned with categories.  SCOs claims are real;
they illustrate essential points of law as concerns software as intellectual
property.  It is silly to think otherwise.  But what SCO is really doing
(unwillingly) is proving that you can't ignore the AT&T/BSD outcome just
because you bought the code from AT&T after that happened.  Unix belongs to
everyone, and Linux is The World's Operating System(tm), thanks to SCO and
those assholes who thought they could monopolize through the courts.

>Think about that.  So whatever violations that SCO claims that IBM made,
>was with IBM's own code.  That means that the entire suit comes down to
>a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, and the copyright thing is a
>moot point because IBM owns the copyright and said that it was OK
>because they contributed the code to Linux under the GPL.  So the
>license fees that SCO wants to charge is out the window too because SCO
>doesn't own the code.

In deference to your position, IBM's lawyers did point out that SCO was trying
to extort Linux *users*, without ever providing evidence of their claim. It
was a telling point, to me, though I don't know how much of an impact it made
on the judge.

>But, all of this is just my twisted way of thinking, so I could be wrong
>on one or more aspects of this.  In other words, I am not a lawyer, but
>I probably should have been.

You'd have made a damn good barber, I think.  ;)
-- 
T. Max Devlin
*** It's 2003!  Why can't I teleport?!? ***
                           -- Louis Black
0
tmax (605)
12/6/2003 8:27:00 AM
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:07:39 GMT, Ian Amuhton wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote in <epnbuvs7b66y$.dlg@funkenbusch.com> at December 5,
> 2003 07:31 pm
> 
>> 
>> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
>> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
>> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
>> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
>> sleeve.
> 
> My opinion is that you are thinking too deeply about this. You should
> apply Occam's razor, it is simply a pump-n-dump scam nothing more.

I think that's unlikely.  A pump-n-dump is only successful if there is
little to no chance of you getting caught.  This is so high profile that if
that's what they're doing, there is no way they won't be caught and spend a
lot of time in prison.

> They never had any delusions about winning the legal battle. All they
> ever wanted is to drag it out as long as possible while they are
> beating the PR drums and harvesting the idiots on the stock exchange.

I don't think Boises would be involved in a simple pump-n-dump.  Why would
he soil his hard earned image simply for a little cash.  Remember, most of
his money from this will come from a victory on contingency, or through the
sale of SCO to another company (which isn't likely if they're deemed to be
a big SEC risk)
0
erik38 (8626)
12/6/2003 8:41:18 AM
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:58:02 GMT, Daniel Rudy wrote:

> Somewhere around the time of 12/05/2003 16:31, the world stopped and
> listened as Erik Funkenbusch contributed this to humanity:
> 
>> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
>> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
>> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
>> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
>> 
>> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
>> 
>> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
>> 
>> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
>> copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
>> 
>> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
>> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
>> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
>> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
>> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
>> theatrics.
> 
> It really depends on how perceptive the judge is.  If or when she
> figures out that SCO is using her courtroom for theatrics, and how far
> along in the case that she figures it out, will determine how pissed off
> she will be and what sanctions she will impose on SCO.  Probably jail
> time for the company officers on a contempt of court charge.

As I said, even if they succeeded in making their point, it may just
backfire in their face.

>> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
>> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
>> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
>> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
>> sleeve.
> 
> Wow...I never thought that I would hear you say that.  

Say what?  You don't know anything about my motivations.  You only know
what you and others want to believe about me.

> It's probably all
> smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very educational about the
> standing of SCO anyways.  

I can't reconcile this logically.  Boises is not stupid, and he's not
insane.  SCO isn't paying him (and his firm) enough to soil their
reputation if it were only smoke and mirrors.

> SCO wants IBM to provide all 40 MILLION lines
> of AIX code to SCO so that SCO can find the evidence to support their
> lawsuit against IBM?
> 
> SCO filed the suit because they claim to have found evidence of contract
> violations.  When a suit is filed, the burden of proof is on the entity
> making the filing.  So SCO will have to show the court exactly where
> these violations are, and they also have to show that IBM was the one
> who did it.

While that's true, they only have to do so when compelled to.

> Some interesting things that I noticed:
> 
> If SCO has already found violations, then why do they need to look at
> AIX source code?

Maybe they don't need to.  Maybe it's another tactic to put off revealing
their hand until as late as possible.  Maybe their information wasn't
gathered legally, and they want a legal avenue to point to for discovery.  

> Another interesting thing is this.  SCO has acknowledged in court that
> the code that IBM has contributed to Unix (ie dirivitve work/code/etc)
> belongs to IBM, but there are contractual obligations to what IBM can do
> with their own code.  To me that is quite significant because that means
> that there is no copyright or trade secret violations because IBM owns
> the code in question and has officially released it to Linux under the GPL.

That ignores the fact that licensing is covered under copyright law.
Taking the GPL at face value, one can violate copyright law via failing to
adhere to the GPL terms and conditions, even on your own original code.

It's up for debate as to whether a kernel module can be considered a
derivitive work.  This is something the FSF has been asserting for a while
now.  But, if it *IS* a derivitive work, then despite the fact that the
code was written by IBM, distributing it could still violate the terms of
their license with SCO.

> Think about that.  So whatever violations that SCO claims that IBM made,
> was with IBM's own code.  That means that the entire suit comes down to
> a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, and the copyright thing is a
> moot point because IBM owns the copyright and said that it was OK
> because they contributed the code to Linux under the GPL.  So the
> license fees that SCO wants to charge is out the window too because SCO
> doesn't own the code.

You're ignoring that licensing based on copyright is also covered under
copyright.
0
erik38 (8626)
12/6/2003 8:54:15 AM
Erik Funkenbusch drooled & blabbered on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 at 00:31 GMT:

> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".

Rhetorical question, this: are there any lengths you won't go to in
order to divert attention away from MICROS~1, and, in this instance,
their funding of SCO?

-- 
I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner
that fish follow migrating caribou.
0
Sinister
12/6/2003 2:19:05 PM
In article <fj68s617vobw$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> It's probably all smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very
>> educational about the standing of SCO anyways.  
> 
> I can't reconcile this logically.  Boises is not stupid, and he's not
> insane.  SCO isn't paying him (and his firm) enough to soil their
> reputation if it were only smoke and mirrors.

I wonder if there was much reputation left to soil.  Boises is prominent,
but does he ever win?  I recall him being associated with a lot of prominent
failures.

Anyway, the SCO filing include claims that are nonsensical from a legal
point of view.  Pretty much everything they have said about GPL, for
example, is not only wrong, but it is *impossible* for it to be right under
*any* *possible* set of facts.

The only time prior to this that I'd seen stuff this bogus was when I amused
myself by arguing with the tax resistance nuts.  SCO's take on IP law is
about as far off as the arguments that you don't have to file tax returns or
pay income tax because (pick your favorite): the IRS is a private
corporation rather than a government agency and so has no authority; the
authority of the Federal courts only extends to matters of admiralty; the
Federal government only actually has authority to make laws for Washington,
DC, and so only people who live there have to pay income tax; the phrase
"for purposes of this chapter, United States includes Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands" means that ONLY Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands count as
"United States" (this one is doubly stupid because that comes from a chapter
of the tax code that has nothing to do with the personal income tax); they
have no signed contract with the Federal government agreeing to accept its
laws; their ancestors were citizens before the 14th amendment and Federal
law only applies to those people who were made citizens by that amendment
(or something like that...I recall there was one involving the 14th
amendment, but I don't recall exactly what it was).

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
12/6/2003 2:27:46 PM
Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Erik Funkenbusch mumbled this incantation:

>> They never had any delusions about winning the legal battle. All they
>> ever wanted is to drag it out as long as possible while they are
>> beating the PR drums and harvesting the idiots on the stock exchange.
>
> I don't think Boises would be involved in a simple pump-n-dump.  Why would
> he soil his hard earned image simply for a little cash.  Remember, most of
> his money from this will come from a victory on contingency, or through the
> sale of SCO to another company (which isn't likely if they're deemed to be
> a big SEC risk)

I think that's where Boies comes in.  He's probably telling them just
how much they can get away with without risking fines or jail time.  For
Boies, it's just a job that'll pay the bills, with a slight chance of a
bigger payoff later.  For him, it's a win-win.  Whatever happens, his
reputation has been enhanced.  (I know it sounds paradoxical.  And it
also applies to McBride.  If you are known as a dirty successful player,
that only increases your value.)

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
0
iso
12/6/2003 4:10:53 PM
Lin�nut wrote:

> reputation has been enhanced.  (I know it sounds paradoxical.  And it
> also applies to McBride.  If you are known as a dirty successful player,
> that only increases your value.)
> 

IF YOU LIKE HIM SO MUCH LINONUT WHY DON'T YOU HEAD ON DOWN TO LINDON AND 
OFFER YOURSELF AS A CUNCUBINE

0
jabailo2 (6594)
12/6/2003 4:12:12 PM
In article <slrnbt3pgo.j6r.sm@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget wrote:
> Rhetorical question, this: are there any lengths you won't go to in
> order to divert attention away from MICROS~1, and, in this instance,
> their funding of SCO?

Question: why do you ignore Sun?  Sun is funding SCO the same way MS is,
and Sun has actively taken advantage of SCO FUD to try to get people to
use Solaris over Linux.

-- 
Evidence Eliminator is worthless.  See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
12/6/2003 7:29:56 PM
Tim Smith wrote:

> Question: why do you ignore Sun?  Sun is funding SCO the same way MS is,
> and Sun has actively taken advantage of SCO FUD to try to get people to
> use Solaris over Linux.
> 

Not really.  Sun is using SCO to indemnify their Linux.

If you read all their new product announcments you can see they are all 
Linux related.

0
jabailo2 (6594)
12/6/2003 7:33:45 PM
Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <slrnbt3pgo.j6r.sm@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget wrote:
>> Rhetorical question, this: are there any lengths you won't go to in
>> order to divert attention away from MICROS~1, and, in this instance,
>> their funding of SCO?
> 
> Question: why do you ignore Sun?  Sun is funding SCO the same way MS is,
> and Sun has actively taken advantage of SCO FUD to try to get people to
> use Solaris over Linux.
> 

Sun actually *is* a company using Unix. MS isn't. Additionally the sum from
MS is much larger. Now explain in detail why
-- 
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
        It could be worse, but it'll take time.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
12/6/2003 7:37:12 PM
Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Tim Smith mumbled this incantation:

> In article <slrnbt3pgo.j6r.sm@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget wrote:
>> Rhetorical question, this: are there any lengths you won't go to in
>> order to divert attention away from MICROS~1, and, in this instance,
>> their funding of SCO?
>
> Question: why do you ignore Sun?  Sun is funding SCO the same way MS is,
> and Sun has actively taken advantage of SCO FUD to try to get people to
> use Solaris over Linux.

Very true.  It is difficult to get people to choose "Slowlaris" over
Linux, though.  (By "people" I exclude PHBs).

I think people realize that, no matter what is done, SCO will be
rattling its sabers, trying to shake money out of the tree, as long as
SCO exists.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
0
iso
12/6/2003 8:53:33 PM
Somewhere around the time of 12/06/2003 00:54, the world stopped and
listened as Erik Funkenbusch contributed this to humanity:

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:58:02 GMT, Daniel Rudy wrote:
> 
> 
>>Somewhere around the time of 12/05/2003 16:31, the world stopped and
>>listened as Erik Funkenbusch contributed this to humanity:
>>
>>
>>>I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
>>>strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
>>>point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
>>>attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
>>>
>>>Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
>>>
>>>http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
>>>
>>>"The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
>>>copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
>>>
>>>If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
>>>doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
>>>risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
>>>that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
>>>especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
>>>theatrics.
>>
>>It really depends on how perceptive the judge is.  If or when she
>>figures out that SCO is using her courtroom for theatrics, and how far
>>along in the case that she figures it out, will determine how pissed off
>>she will be and what sanctions she will impose on SCO.  Probably jail
>>time for the company officers on a contempt of court charge.
> 
> 
> As I said, even if they succeeded in making their point, it may just
> backfire in their face.
> 
> 

In either case, SCO will either lose normally, or lose spetacurlarly.

>>>Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
>>>easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
>>>stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
>>>strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
>>>sleeve.
>>
>>Wow...I never thought that I would hear you say that.  
> 
> 
> Say what?  You don't know anything about my motivations.
>

You are right, I don't know anything about your motivations.

> You only know what you and others want to believe about me.
> 
> 

I only know what I see and hear, and make conclusions based on that.

>>It's probably all
>>smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very educational about the
>>standing of SCO anyways.  
> 
> 
> I can't reconcile this logically.  Boises is not stupid, and he's not
> insane.  SCO isn't paying him (and his firm) enough to soil their
> reputation if it were only smoke and mirrors.
> 
> 

I didn't say that Boises was stupid, but his reputation as losing
prominent cases has already been established.  SCO is paying him alot of
money to keep him on their side.  Would you join a lost cause if someone
paid you 9 million?

>>SCO wants IBM to provide all 40 MILLION lines
>>of AIX code to SCO so that SCO can find the evidence to support their
>>lawsuit against IBM?
>>
>>SCO filed the suit because they claim to have found evidence of contract
>>violations.  When a suit is filed, the burden of proof is on the entity
>>making the filing.  So SCO will have to show the court exactly where
>>these violations are, and they also have to show that IBM was the one
>>who did it.
> 
> 
> While that's true, they only have to do so when compelled to.
> 
> 

Agreed.

>>Some interesting things that I noticed:
>>
>>If SCO has already found violations, then why do they need to look at
>>AIX source code?
> 
> 
> Maybe they don't need to.  Maybe it's another tactic to put off revealing
> their hand until as late as possible.  Maybe their information wasn't
> gathered legally, and they want a legal avenue to point to for discovery.  
> 
> 

Well, yesterday's ruling blew that out of the water.  SCO must disclose
what they have to IBM, in detail, and they have 30 days to do it.

>>Another interesting thing is this.  SCO has acknowledged in court that
>>the code that IBM has contributed to Unix (ie dirivitve work/code/etc)
>>belongs to IBM, but there are contractual obligations to what IBM can do
>>with their own code.  To me that is quite significant because that means
>>that there is no copyright or trade secret violations because IBM owns
>>the code in question and has officially released it to Linux under the GPL.
> 
> 
> That ignores the fact that licensing is covered under copyright law.
> Taking the GPL at face value, one can violate copyright law via failing to
> adhere to the GPL terms and conditions, even on your own original code.

Code can be dual licensed.

> It's up for debate as to whether a kernel module can be considered a
> derivitive work.  This is something the FSF has been asserting for a while
> now.  But, if it *IS* a derivitive work, then despite the fact that the
> code was written by IBM, distributing it could still violate the terms of
> their license with SCO.
> 

And that is IBM's problem, not Linux.

>>Think about that.  So whatever violations that SCO claims that IBM made,
>>was with IBM's own code.  That means that the entire suit comes down to
>>a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, and the copyright thing is a
>>moot point because IBM owns the copyright and said that it was OK
>>because they contributed the code to Linux under the GPL.  So the
>>license fees that SCO wants to charge is out the window too because SCO
>>doesn't own the code.
> 
> 
> You're ignoring that licensing based on copyright is also covered under
> copyright.

But SCO has stated in court that IBM owns the copyright to any code that
IBM writes, so how can it be a copyright violation if IBM says we can
use it?  It's *IBMs* code.  So it's not really a copyright issue at this
point.

It's more of a contract dispute at this point because apparently there
is a clause in the contract that states that SCO has control over any
code that IBM writes in connection to Unix even though IBM still owns
the code.  So IBM took their own code that they wrote for Unix and
incorporated it into Linux without SCO's permission, which they need
because of the contract.

So, say that SCO wins their case against IBM for breach of contract and
get's paid the 3 billion.  They cannot really go after the users because
there is no copyright violation of Unix, unless IBMs code is a
dirivitive work.

What's a difivitive work?  Here's what I think:  If I take a peice of
code that you wrote and modify it, then I would call that a dirivitive
work.  But, if I write a separate peice of code, that works with your
code or on top of your code (different module, library, application,
etc.) then that wouldn't be a dirivitive work.

But, this is the US leagal system that we are talking about here, so
maybe this time we will get a clear definition of what a dirivitive work is.

-- 
Daniel Rudy

Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.

0
dcrudy (487)
12/6/2003 9:53:12 PM
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:27:46 GMT, Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <fj68s617vobw$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> It's probably all smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very
>>> educational about the standing of SCO anyways.  
>> 
>> I can't reconcile this logically.  Boises is not stupid, and he's not
>> insane.  SCO isn't paying him (and his firm) enough to soil their
>> reputation if it were only smoke and mirrors.
> 
> I wonder if there was much reputation left to soil.  Boises is prominent,
> but does he ever win?  I recall him being associated with a lot of prominent
> failures.

Are you forgetting about the DOJ trial?

> Anyway, the SCO filing include claims that are nonsensical from a legal
> point of view.  Pretty much everything they have said about GPL, for
> example, is not only wrong, but it is *impossible* for it to be right under
> *any* *possible* set of facts.

You seem so certain.  Law is hardly an exact science, and all it takes is
for the judicial body to reinterpret the laws for new precedence to be set.
I'm not suggesting that any of their claims are true, but I don't hae any
such confidence in the legal system to rule in any specific manner.

The fact is, if you can find a sympathetic judge, you can win almost any
kind of suit.  Whether it will stand up under appeal is a different story,
but again, political pressures can often win out over legal ones.

> The only time prior to this that I'd seen stuff this bogus was when I amused
> myself by arguing with the tax resistance nuts.  SCO's take on IP law is
> about as far off as the arguments that you don't have to file tax returns or
> pay income tax because (pick your favorite): 

The difference between these situations is that there's plenty of case law
siding against the tax nuts.  The GPL has never been tested in court.  I'm
all for this lawsuit for the single reason that it may finally, once and
for all, either invalidate the GPL or confirm it.
0
erik38 (8626)
12/7/2003 12:48:51 AM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> You seem so certain.  Law is hardly an exact science, and all it takes is
> for the judicial body to reinterpret the laws for new precedence to be
> set. I'm not suggesting that any of their claims are true, but I don't hae
> any such confidence in the legal system to rule in any specific manner.
> 
> The fact is, if you can find a sympathetic judge, you can win almost any
> kind of suit.  Whether it will stand up under appeal is a different story,
> but again, political pressures can often win out over legal ones.

It gets even worse when a jury is involved (as both parties have requested
for this case). Then there really is no predicting the outcome with any
confidence...

B.
-- 
Registered Linux user number 243680.
http://www.mandrakeuser.org/  Where the fun begins!
How to ask questions in Linux newsgroups:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
0
Brian
12/7/2003 1:44:37 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Em Domingo, 07 de Dezembro de 2003 00:48, Erik Funkenbusch escreveu:

> The difference between these situations is that there's plenty of cas=
e law
> siding against the tax nuts.  The GPL has never been tested in court.=
  I'm
> all for this lawsuit for the single reason that it may finally, once =
and
> for all, either invalidate the GPL or confirm it.

It won't. The court case is just about a contract breach. I doubt it wi=
ll
ever touch GPL or copyrights, dispite all the FUD generated around it..=
..

- --=20
Rui Malheiro
"Um outro mundo =C3=A9 poss=C3=ADvel"
..=20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0ygL6xZVe81Ht3gRAqh5AJ4+qXpK1OZHGy/4AA+LXWtOI0B2NwCfeePx
jmkG2dAjGMLUhKCkj8q93HI=3D
=3DQja2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
rmalheiro (144)
12/7/2003 1:15:55 PM
Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Rui Malheiro mumbled this incantation:

> Em Domingo, 07 de Dezembro de 2003 00:48, Erik Funkenbusch escreveu:
>
>> The difference between these situations is that there's plenty of case law
>> siding against the tax nuts.  The GPL has never been tested in court.  I'm
>> all for this lawsuit for the single reason that it may finally, once and
>> for all, either invalidate the GPL or confirm it.
>
> It won't. The court case is just about a contract breach. I doubt it will
> ever touch GPL or copyrights, dispite all the FUD generated around it...

Unless SCO has some solid documentation already prepared, the contract
breach itself will not be touched.

Based on the way Darl's lawyer brother was wanting IBM to provide all
the code to AIX so that SCO could analyze it for various transgressions
(in other words, "Judgie Poo, we don't have a hell of a lot, so let us
have IBM's code so we can go on a fishing expedition"), SCO will not be
ready after the 30-day period.

Of course, Darl will keep pushing the issue in the press as long as he
can, whatever happens.

Hell, maybe he'll be printing SCO pamphlets using the prison printing
press.  I think Mel Brooks made a movie along those lines.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
0
iso
12/7/2003 3:39:20 PM
begin  In <la33tvkf4piftrjr8o4rhkvbpglr5uurgt@4ax.com>, on 12/06/2003
   at 03:27 AM, T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> said:

>The only argument against doing so is that SCO might steal IBM's AIX
>code, which to be honest isn't a very problematic scenario.  What are
>they supposed to do with it, improve SCO without improving Linux, or
>what?

That should be obvious. If they stole IBM's code they'd put it into
Unix, not into Linux.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action.  I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do
not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

0
spamtrap16 (3722)
12/8/2003 1:00:47 AM
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Daniel Rudy say:
> >Somewhere around the time of 12/05/2003 16:31, the world stopped and
> >listened as Erik Funkenbusch contributed this to humanity:
> >
> >> I have recently been thinking about SCO's, to put it mildly, "odd" legal
> >> strategy when something occured to me.  Perhaps SCO is trying to make a
> >> point with all this legal wrangling.  In effect, they appear to be
> >> attempting to "turn the legal system upside down".
> >>
> >> Now where have we heard that kind of comment before?
> >>
> >> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
> >>
> >> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.  A hack on the
> >> copyright system, it turns the concept of copyright upside down"
> >>
> >> If they're trying to prove that the GPL is invalid, by illustrating how
> >> doing the same thing with the legal system is invalid, it's an incredibly
> >> risky and gutsy move, and more probably an incredibly stupid one.  One
> >> that, even if successful could seriously backfire in their faces,
> >> especially since judges don't like having their courtroom be the place for
> >> theatrics.
> >
> >It really depends on how perceptive the judge is.  If or when she
> >figures out that SCO is using her courtroom for theatrics, and how far
> >along in the case that she figures it out, will determine how pissed off
> >she will be and what sanctions she will impose on SCO.
>
> You see, that's why this kind of shit happens, because judges aren't allowed
> to let how pissed off they are determine what sanctions they impose.
>
> >Probably jail
> >time for the company officers on a contempt of court charge.
>
> An attractive fantasy, but still....
>
> >> Throughout this even i've been at a loss to explain their behavior.  It's
> >> easy to just dismiss Darl as insane and stupid.  However, Boises isn't
> >> stupid or insane, and it's tough to understand why they would take this
> >> strategy, especially on contingency, if they didn't have something up their
> >> sleeve.
> >
> >Wow...I never thought that I would hear you say that.  It's probably all
> >smoke and mirrors.  Reading Groklaw has been very educational about the
> >standing of SCO anyways.  SCO wants IBM to provide all 40 MILLION lines
> >of AIX code to SCO so that SCO can find the evidence to support their
> >lawsuit against IBM?
>
> That's the gist of it from what I've read.  Supposedly on the grounds that
> they can't tell whether it violates trade secret or copyright law, they cannot
> just provide the code they believe is being infringed by IBM, since they don't
> know how it is being infringed.
>
> Don't worry; the judge didn't buy it either.
>
> >SCO filed the suit because they claim to have found evidence of contract
> >violations.  When a suit is filed, the burden of proof is on the entity
> >making the filing.  So SCO will have to show the court exactly where
> >these violations are, and they also have to show that IBM was the one
> >who did it.
>
> That is where they are now, though this is recent, and still speculative.
> Personally, I don't understand why IBM wouldn't turn over the 40 million lines
> of AIX (or whatever), since the proceedings are protected.
>
> >Some interesting things that I noticed:
> >
> >If SCO has already found violations, then why do they need to look at
> >AIX source code?
>
> Because they don't know where the violations are.  They know (supposedly) that
> IBM 'must have' used their technology in AIX/Linux code, but how do you
> specify which 'part' it is?  Let SCO have all of it, I say.  Most people here
> would, too, I think, if they weren't so biased against one side of the case.
> The only argument against doing so is that SCO might steal IBM's AIX code,
> which to be honest isn't a very problematic scenario.  What are they supposed
> to do with it, improve SCO without improving Linux, or what?
>
> >Another interesting thing is this.  SCO has acknowledged in court that
> >the code that IBM has contributed to Unix (ie dirivitve work/code/etc)
> >belongs to IBM, but there are contractual obligations to what IBM can do
> >with their own code.  To me that is quite significant because that means
> >that there is no copyright or trade secret violations because IBM owns
> >the code in question and has officially released it to Linux under the GPL.
>
> It would be nice if there weren't pointed copyright or trade secret issues
> involved in this case, but 'contract issues' really does involve any and all
> of these.  Precedent is not concerned with categories.  SCOs claims are real;
> they illustrate essential points of law as concerns software as intellectual
> property.  It is silly to think otherwise.  But what SCO is really doing
> (unwillingly) is proving that you can't ignore the AT&T/BSD outcome just
> because you bought the code from AT&T after that happened.  Unix belongs to
> everyone, and Linux is The World's Operating System(tm), thanks to SCO and
> those assholes who thought they could monopolize through the courts.
>
> >Think about that.  So whatever violations that SCO claims that IBM made,
> >was with IBM's own code.  That means that the entire suit comes down to
> >a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, and the copyright thing is a
> >moot point because IBM owns the copyright and said that it was OK
> >because they contributed the code to Linux under the GPL.  So the
> >license fees that SCO wants to charge is out the window too because SCO
> >doesn't own the code.
>
> In deference to your position, IBM's lawyers did point out that SCO was trying
> to extort Linux *users*, without ever providing evidence of their claim. It
> was a telling point, to me, though I don't know how much of an impact it made
> on the judge.
>
> >But, all of this is just my twisted way of thinking, so I could be wrong
> >on one or more aspects of this.  In other words, I am not a lawyer, but
> >I probably should have been.
>
> You'd have made a damn good barber, I think.  ;)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** It's 2003!  Why can't I teleport?!? ***
>                            -- Louis Black

There are no copyright claims in SCO vs. IBM.

"Tortorous interference", "breach contract" and two others (it's been a while
since I read the amended suit).

The "copyright" claims and similar have only spewed out of SCO's mouth
at forums, in interviews and their press releases. No copyright infringement
claims have been filed by SCO in the IBM suit or any other at this point in time.

For SCO to put out that they will be filing a "copyright infringement" suit within
a few days or next week, is just more smoke and mirrors.

--
Regards,

Fredrick

0
depm (44)
12/8/2003 2:49:35 PM
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

    Erik> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/

    Erik> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.
    Erik> A hack on the copyright system, it turns the concept of
    Erik> copyright upside down"

No.  The GPL only turned it rightside left.  :)


-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     +Z05biGVm-(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 

E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
0
danlee (1495)
12/8/2003 10:03:15 PM
LEE Sau Dan wrote:

>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> 
>     Erik> http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
> 
>     Erik> "The GPL has become a powerful force in the information age.
>     Erik> A hack on the copyright system, it turns the concept of
>     Erik> copyright upside down"
> 
> No.  The GPL only turned it rightside left.  :)

You'll have to forgive Erik...he doesn't even know what an anus is.

-- 
---
The email address listed for this user is a spamtrap.

Do not respond.
0
strapper (23)
12/9/2003 6:35:58 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jules Dubois
<bogus@invalid.tld>
 wrote
on Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:22:28 -0700
<tu9zyonyyxb.1bgf22231nar4$.dlg@40tude.net>:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:15:18 -0700, in article
> <news:cox9zc694ues$.t4aot7jnrxjq.dlg@40tude.net>, Jules Dubois wrote:
>
>> SCO takes a well-deserved bruising:
>> 
>>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205143009441
>
> Additional details:
>
>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031205161348100
>
> Oh, no!  There goes S C O!
> Go, go!  Godzilla!
>

Great.  Now I'll have to get the Song Crowbar(tm)...

:-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
12/11/2003 1:00:23 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

SCO VS IBM:IBM Addendum to Memorandum in Support of IBM's 2nd Motion to Compel
Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031119041719640) Thursday, November 20 2003 @ 01:17 AM EST SCO VS IBM:IBM Addendum to Memorandum in Support of IBM's 2nd Motion to Compel Discovery More proof that SCO's claims are baseless..... (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2003111102212930): "Information Requested by IBM SCO's Supplemental Response Deficiencies in SCO's Supplemental Response 1 Interrogatory No. 1 seeks specific identification of all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused. This information is requested by product, file and line of code. SCO reiterates its references to "UNIX software design methods" and "technical UNIX categories" (Exh. A at 3.) SCO lists 591 files, by source file heading, contained in unidentified releases of the Linux 2.4 and/or Linux 2.5 kernels. It states merely that they include or may include "information (including methods) that IBM was required to maintain as confidential or proprietary pursuant to contract with SCO and/or which constitute trade secrets misused by IBM". (Id. at 3�6, 7� 19.) SCO fails to identify a single Unix file or line of code. SCO's references to "design methods" and "technical Unix categories" are so vague as to be essentially meaningless. In fact, SCO d...

SCO wins legal round against IBM over Linux code
http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh11574_2005-01-20_18-17-15_n20498991_newsml "Judge Brooke Wells granted SCO a partial review of IBM's programming code and said that SCO could be given complete access in the future if IBM withholds any further data." Looks like fishing season has opened. In article <%v0Id.13754$5R.10345@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:34:51 +0000), Philip wrote: > http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh11574_2005-01-20_18-17-15_n20498991_newsml > > "Ju...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Peopletools v8.45 [5 CDs] for DB2 UDB for OS/390, and for DB2 UDB for Unix, Macromedia ColdFusion MX V6.0.1 for IBM WebSphere Application Server, Macromedia ColdFusion MX for J2EE, other IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2 17/Sep/2004 WEBSPHERE BUSINESS INTEGRATION CONNECT ADVANCED v4.2.2 - IBM CD NR 16 297 DW v1.2 DB2 UDB Enterprise Edition V7.2.10a - IBM Tivoli CD NR 16 110 IBM DB2 UDB Enterprise Server Edition v8.2 16 053 Peoplesoft Peopletools v8.45 - Peoplesoft [5 CDs] 16 029 Sybase:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-456rm4 Microsoft SQL Server:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-457py4 DB2 UDB for OS/390:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-45auo5 Oracle:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-452o1s Informix:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-453x5w DB2 UDB for Unix, NT:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-454yc...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Peopletools v8.45 [5 CDs] for DB2 UDB for OS/390, and for DB2 UDB for Unix, Macromedia ColdFusion MX V6.0.1 for IBM WebSphere Application Server, Macromedia ColdFusion MX for J2EE, other IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2 17/Sep/2004 WEBSPHERE BUSINESS INTEGRATION CONNECT ADVANCED v4.2.2 - IBM CD NR 16 297 DW v1.2 DB2 UDB Enterprise Edition V7.2.10a - IBM Tivoli CD NR 16 110 IBM DB2 UDB Enterprise Server Edition v8.2 16 053 Peoplesoft Peopletools v8.45 - Peoplesoft [5 CDs] 16 029 Sybase:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-456rm4 Microsoft SQL Server:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-457py4 DB2 UDB for OS/390:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-45auo5 Oracle:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-452o1s Informix:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-453x5w DB2 UDB for Unix, NT:524953-454f57-4e53594-f55123-454yc...

[News] [Linux] IBM Brings Linux to AIX and i5/OS Machines Using New Software
IBM Previews Virtualization Management Tool for Power-Based Boxes ,----[ Quote ] | ...Virtual Availability Manager, within the Systems Director | Virtualization Manager tool will allow customers who deploy a Xen | hypervisor on their Linux-on-X64 servers to create what IBM is | calling a "high availability farm" that can be used to rehost | virtual machine partitions that are taken out by crashes. `---- http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh062507-story07.html On Jun 25, 11:06 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: > IBM Previews Virtualization Management To...

2004: IBM embraces Linux internally. 2011: IBM is 90% Windows on the desktop
Jan 2004: "Our chairman has challenged the IT organization, and indeed all of IBM, to move to a Linux based desktop before the end of 2005. The Inquirer (http://s.tt/14VpY) http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1041089/internal-memo-confirms-ibm-linux-desktop Dec 29 2010: "The Windows XP Client for eBusiness is currently the most dominant and I would estimate it to be used by over 90% of the employee population (350,000+ people)." http://www.quora.com/IBM/What-percentage-of-employees-at-IBM-use-Linux-vs-Windows-or-Mac-as-their-day-to-day-OS-laptop-desktop Linux: the desktop OS nobody wants or needs. On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:47:48 -0500, DFS wrote: > Jan 2004: "Our chairman has challenged the IT organization, and indeed > all of IBM, to move to a Linux based desktop before the end of 2005. > The Inquirer (http://s.tt/14VpY) > > http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1041089/internal-memo-confirms-ibm-linux-desktop > > > > Dec 29 2010: "The Windows XP Client for eBusiness is currently the most > dominant and I would estimate it to be used by over 90% of the employee > population (350,000+ people)." > > http://www.quora.com/IBM/What-percentage-of-employees-at-IBM-use-Linux-vs-Windows-or-Mac-as-their-day-to-day-OS-laptop-desktop > > > > Linux: the desktop OS nobody wants or needs. IBM is doing a major rollout of new corporate laptop...

linux / SCO vs. IBM licensing issues
In light of the recent uncertainty SCO has introduced, would a small business be better off pursuing one of the BSD distributions than the Linux ones, to avoid possible litigation in the future regarding the UNIX copyrights? Thanks, Mike Darrett www.darrettenterprises.com Mike Darrett wrote: > > In light of the recent uncertainty SCO has introduced, would a small > business be better off pursuing one of the BSD distributions than the > Linux ones, to avoid possible litigation in the future regarding the > UNIX copyrights? One very worst case (and very unlikely) scenario is that SCO copyright code is in the Linux kernel illegally. ***IF*** that is the case, then that part of the Linux kernel will have to be re-written to remove it. Once that is done, SCO has not further claim and can't demand royalites from anyone. An even worse scenario is that Linux users are forced to pay SCO. Then the vast majority of them may want to move to *BSD. How long will that take? Probably less than a week. This is really not a issue to be worrying about now. Chances are that any court case will take 5 plus years to run its course. Lets worry about it in another 3-4 years. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ J. Headley: "God, root, what is difference ?" G. Haverland: "God can change the byte ...

SN#18519 IBM Redpaper: How to Install Solaris 10 OS on Supported IBM BladeCenter Servers
SYSTEM NEWS FOR SUN USERS Vol 114 Issue 4 2007-08-20 Article 18519 from section "Service" Technical overview of Solaris OS, Installation, Management and Storage Since the Solaris Operating System (Solaris OS) will now be supported on certain IBM systems, this white paper will be useful for those installing the Solaris OS on supported BladeCenter servers. Topics include Fibre Channel, Solaris Containers, DTrace, IBM Director, and more. Details at http://sun.systemnews.com/g?A=18519 Have a custom version of 'System News for Sun Users' delivered to you via email each week in PDF, text or HTML. Only the sections that you select will be included in your copy of the news magazine. Subscribe at http://sun.systemnews.com/subscribe (c) 2005 System News, Inc. http://www.systemnews.com ...

IBM wants OS/2 users to transition to Linux?
Then why dont they show this support by offering it pre-loaded on their PCs? http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/08/HNmsdominance_1.html > Then why don't they show this support by offering it pre-loaded > on their PCs? > Thanks for the article. Interesting to see "what is going on". AFAIK, IBM does pre-install Linux on *some* of their E-Server and/or NetFinity Server computer systems. (They may have a different brand name by now.), for instance as a choice between a Microsoft product or the Red Hat Linux product. (IBM is(was?) a major name owner/shareholder o...

Linux: the OS that lost IBM investors $49 billion
IBM (a Linux company) market cap: Mar 8 2013: $235B Oct 2 2014: $186B down $49 billion (you "advocates" don't mind idiotic posts like this, do you? You sure don't mind when they're made by that babbling liar 7). On 10/3/14 5:27 PM, Ezekiel wrote: > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message > news:m0mcoc$l35$3@news.albasani.net... >> On 10/3/14 4:32 PM, DFS wrote: >>> IBM (a Linux company) market cap: >>> >>> Mar 8 2013: $235B >>> Oct 2 2014: $186B >>> >>> down $49 billion >> >> Sun does not exist anymore... and it is not because of Linux, >> rather their investment in SPARC/Solaris. > > Apollo computer, Data General and DEC don't exist anymore either. What does > any of this have to do with Sun? It has to do with IBM. Company does not loose money on Linux for sure... > > > >>> (you "advocates" don't mind idiotic posts like this, do you? You sure >>> don't mind when they're made by that babbling liar 7). >>> >> Oracle is Linux company, too, and they are doing rather well. > > Oracle is a proprietary RDBMS company. They make their money selling > proprietary closed-source database products. > And IBM isn't? On 10/3/14 4:32 PM, DFS wrote: > IBM (a Linux company) market cap: > > Mar 8 2013: $235B...

IBM, SGI WIN LINUX SUPERCOMPUTER DEALS IN ASIA
IBM Corp. and Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGI) have won contracts to supply Linux-based supercomputers to a Korean national university and a Japanese nuclear research institute, the two companies said Thursday. For the full story: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=9C4094:2585418 ...

News://SCO Dealt Setback in IBM Linux Lawsuit
I didn't see this posted here yet, surprisingly, so: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060630/linux_lawsuit.html?.v=2 "SCO Dealt Setback in IBM Linux Lawsuit Friday June 30, 5:12 pm ET By Paul Foy, Associated Press Writer Court Tosses Most of SCO Claims Against IBM Over Linux Code SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A U.S. magistrate has struck down many of the SCO Group Inc.'s claims against IBM Corp., saying the Utah company failed to show its intellectual property was misappropriated when Big Blue donated software code to the freely distributed Linux operating system." Stork replied to: ...

Code stolen from SCO by IBM/Linux has been finally been found
http://linuxstolescocode.com/ -RFH On 2007-04-03, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote: > > http://linuxstolescocode.com/ That's an interesting line about how if you GPL some code, it no longer belongs to you. I don't think even the FSF would claim that. But someone still dragging this up is likely an open source zealot and not interested in the finer points of licensing issues. FWIW I believe SCO's actions were highly misguided, but some of the comments from open source fundamentalists have done their own cause an awful lot of damge in attacking SCO. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org On Apr 3, 4:48 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > On 2007-04-03, Ramon F Herrera <r...@conexus.net> wrote: > > > > >http://linuxstolescocode.com/ > > That's an interesting line about how if you GPL some code, it no > longer belongs to you. I don't think even the FSF would claim > that. But someone still dragging this up is likely an open source > zealot and not interested in the finer points of licensing issues. > > FWIW I believe SCO's actions were highly misguided, but some of > the comments from open source fundamentalists have done their own > cause an awful lot of damge in attacking SCO. > > -- > Andrew Smallshaw > andr...@sdf.lonestar.org Gee, I wonder whose actions and words are going to be taken into account by the judge and jury? ...

WTT: 32MB SIMMs
I have (6) sticks of SiliconMountain Memory (Parity, Gold leads, 70ns), product # SMM4342-9661. These SIMMs are supposed to be equivalent to IBM 92G7205. This memory works fine in my PC 750 MCA/PCI (6886) under Win98. But it does NOT work reliability under Windows NT 3.51 (My current OS). I would like to trade 192MB of SiliconMountain Memory for (2) sticks of IBM 92G7205 SIMMs. Please contact me via email at gorenbergh @ mags . net. Thanks, Steve (eTh1nk) ...

More on IBM/SCO
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2150880/ibm-subpoenas-microsoft-sun-hp "IBM has been extremely precise in every move than its taken; it's been incredibly instructive in showing how these things should be done. Many of SCO's requests have been vague fishing nets compared to IBM's precision." ...

So why not Linux at IBM?
So why not Linux? Certainly IBM is capable enough to deploy and manage Linux for their employee desktops and laptops. <quote> For the first time, IBM offers to buy employees a Mac and will become one of the biggest Apple shops May 28, 2015 IBM's huge partnership with Apple is giving IBM employees a never-before-offered benefit. IBM is, for the first time, offering to buy employees a Mac as their main work PC, reports 9to5 Mac. IBM plans to deploy around 50,000 MacBooks by the end of the year, according to the memo, making IBM one of the biggest enterprise Mac sho...

IBM asks court to toss SCO claims over Linux code
IBM asks court to toss SCO claims over Linux code SCO is trying to "extract windfall profits for its unjust enrichment" after failing to establish a business in Linux applications, IBM attorneys wrote. "SCO has misused and is misusing its purported rights to Unix operating system developed originally by Bell Laboratories, then a research and development arm of AT&T Corp., to threaten destruction of the competing operating systems known as AIX, Dynix and Linux," the IBM filing says. -- W '04 <:> Open ...

IBM Wins Skirmish in SCO Battle
HAHAHHAHHAAHHAAAHHAA too funny HOW YA LIKE ME NOW!!!! Do you like apples? Well they got you to put up or shut up!!! How do like them apples? Evil M$oft in backgound crying. About time someone put Darl Mc$oftMcbride in his place BEOTCHa!! This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C3BE47.550AEA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Rick" <hpina@att.com> wrote in message = news:br4n87$q3c52@kcweb01.netnews.att.com... > HAHAHHAHHAAHHAAAHHAA too funny >=20 > HOW YA LIKE ME NOW!!!! >=20 > Do you like apples? Well they got you to put up or shut up!!! How do = like > them apples? >=20 > Evil M$oft in backgound crying. >=20 > About time someone put Darl Mc$oftMcbride in his place BEOTCHa!! yeah .. and ibm recommends windows xp too, not linux, idiot. http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=3D= 1&catalogId=3D-840&langId=3D-1&categoryId=3D2049132# cola_moderator ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C3BE47.550AEA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE>&l...

SCO has the Goods and will Prove IBM & LInux are Illegal
Get your check books out Linux users. That will be $199 for you home users and $699 for enterprise Linux. ************************************************************ Brent O. Hatch (5715) Mark F. James (5295) HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. [address, phone] David Boies BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P [address] Stephen N. Zack Mark J. Heise BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P [address, phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, vs. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Defendant. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 03-CV-0294 Hon: Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“SCO”), sues Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and alleges as follows: Nature of This Action 1. UNIX is a computer operating system program and related software and documentation originally developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories (“AT&T”). UNIX is widely used in the corporate, or “enterprise,” computing environment. 2. Through a series of corporate acquisitions, SCO presently owns all right, title and interest in and to UNIX and UnixWare operating system source code, software and sublicensing agreements, together with copyrights, additional licensing rights in and t...

IBM To Offer New Point-of-sale OS From SUSE Linux
The new operating system is based on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and will be compatible with IBM's SurePOS cash register machines, eServers and middleware. http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,88865,00.html?nlid=AM -- A fatal exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C000BD1D in VXD VMM(01) + 0000AD1D. The current application will be terminated. On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:34:14 GMT, alw <alw@LinuxRules.com> wrote: > >The new operating system is based on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and >will be compatible with IBM's SurePOS cash register machines, eServers >and middleware. > >http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,88865,00.html?nlid=AM Really? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ibmpension/message/52277 ARMONK, N.Y., Jan 8, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- IBM today announced that it has received a "Wells Notice" from the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the SEC's investigation of a customer of IBM's Retail Stores Solutions unit, which sells point-of-sale products. IBM disclosed the existence of this investigation on June 2, 2003. The IBM customer that is the subject of this investigation is Dollar General Corporation. It is IBM's understanding that an IBM employee in its Sales and Distribution unit has also received a Wells Notice from the SEC in connection with this matter. The Wells Notice notifies IBM that the SEC staff is considering recommending that the SEC bring a c...

SCO v. IBM: hearing on tenth counterclaim set for August 4
A hearing has been set for August 4 on IBM's tenth counterclaim in the SCO v. IBM suit. Below are the docket entries that you can view with a paid PACER account, and which should show up within a couple days on the court's free docket list at www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html IBM's tenth counterclaim is for a declaratory judgment that IBM's (and, presumably, anyone else's) use and distribution of Linux 2.4 and 2.6 do not infringe any valid SCO copyright. If the judge grants IBM's motion to rule in IBM's favor on this now (without waiting for the trial next April), it would probably quickly lead to an end to SCO's copyright infringement suit against AutoZone, as well as an end to any fear that SCO might prevail in such an action against any other Linux user. (The SCO/IBM contract disputes would remain, but the rest of the world could ignore them.) There will also be a hearing on June 8 about SCO's less-interesting non-dispositive motions. (I'm pretty sure that item 158's reference to item 142 is a mistake and should be to item 120, SCO's motion to bifurcate the case into two trials.) -al 5/26/04 158 Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 10:30 6/8/04 for [142-2] motion or, in the alternative to separate, set for 10:30 6/8/04 for [129-1] motion to amend [23-1] Scheduling order To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc gene...

Web resources about - SCO v IBM: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel(!) - comp.os.linux.advocacy

File:Translational motion.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a featured picture , which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, ...

A Suit Against Bharara For Going After Hedge Funds Survives A Motion to Dismiss
Qualified immunity couldn't save Preet Bharara from discovery in this lawsuit.

Samsung Demos New Motion-Simulating VR Tech at SXSW
... Gear VR fans might soon have the option of adding a new component to their headwear: headphones that make people feel like they're in motion. ...

The ADATA Premier SP550 SSD Review: A Second Look At Silicon Motion's SM2256 Controller
... taking a look at ADATA's Premier SP550 SSD, the company's latest entry-level drive. The Premier SP550 gives us a fresh look at Silicon Motion's ...

A high-definition, motion-detecting wireless home camera for just $50
Wireless home cameras are blowing up in popularity right now, and for good reason. As long as you're connected to the Internet, you can stream ...

The slow-motion implosion of the Republican Party
GOP leaders are trapped by the base's enthusiasm for Trump and resistance to holding hearings on Obama's choice for the Supreme Court, writes ...

Clerk rescinds ban on journalists' access to court motions
MANASSAS, Va. (AP) — A clerk's office in Virginia has ended a five-year policy of denying journalists access to any legal motions filed in the ...

It's Batman VS Terminator In This Stop Motion Short
Batman has faced his share of unusual threats, even throwing down with the Predator at one point. [...]

Michael Jackson Chimp ‘Bubbles’ Gets Stop Motion Animated Movie With ‘Anomalisa’s Dan Harmon
... Isaac Adamson script Bubbles , about Michael Jackson ’s famed Chimpanzee companion, has been acquired to be turned into a stop-motion animated ...

'Hellblade' takes real-time motion capture to the next level
Yesterday, during the Epic Games keynote at GDC 2016, Ninja Theory showed off a live motion capture demo for Hellblade, its upcoming AAA indie ...

Resources last updated: 3/29/2016 3:40:12 PM