SCO - corporate schitzophrenia - comp.os.linux.misc

1. Last month in court, SCO's lawyer: "I will proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the coming few days or no less than a week. And we'll put then fully in front of the Court the three buckets we have outlined here, contract, trade secrets and copyright." 2. But now: Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations, Stowell said. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue." http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/13/HNscoshowscode_1.html They have made various claims here in Australia too. I'm writing to various government authorities to try to start a fraud investigation. gtoomey

W wrote: > <snip> > > SCO does not exist, not since the Caldera take-over from a few years back. > > "The SCO Group" referred to as SCO, exists, and are who gtoomey was refferring. "The Santa Cruz Operation" referred to as SCO, no longer exists, but the SCO Group are an outgrowth or continuation of it. Keep up! Cheers, Gary B-)

"Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message news:40062656.2030106@oz.quest.com... > W wrote: > > <snip> > > > > SCO does not exist, not since the Caldera take-over from a few years back. > > > > > > "The SCO Group" referred to as SCO, exists, and are who gtoomey was > refferring. > > "The Santa Cruz Operation" referred to as SCO, no longer exists, but the > SCO Group are an outgrowth or continuation of it. Keep up! Like I said, SCO does not exist.

"W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message news:narNb.339$Sy1.4319@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message > Like I said, SCO does not exist. > Infact they are called Tarrantella now.

"W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message news:LbrNb.342$Sy1.4010@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > "W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message > news:narNb.339$Sy1.4319@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > > "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message > > Like I said, SCO does not exist. > > > > Infact they are called Tarrantella now. > > Technically, Tarantella was the Santa Cruz Operation. SCO Group was Caldera. You might have called them SCO initially (along with everyone else) but the company name was the Santa Cruz Operation which is not the SCO that everyone talks about today.

W wrote: > "W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message > news:narNb.339$Sy1.4319@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... >> "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message >> Like I said, SCO does not exist. >> > > Infact they are called Tarrantella now. Two R's and two L's so they are not confused with the spider. Ironic eh! -- faeychild.

* faeychild wrote: >> Infact they are called Tarrantella now. > > Two R's and two L's so they are not confused with > the spider. Ironic eh! I believe they're called Tarantella, while the spider's name is tarantula. -- > I'm killfiling you for 30 days, for the same reason that I don't answer my > door on Sundays unless someone has called in advance: Shit, dude, you kill-filed me last week for 60 days. Can't you even do kill-files right? -- Alan Connor and Captain Dondo in c.o.l.misc

In comp.os.linux.misc W <still_@none.com> wrote: >"W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message >news:narNb.339$Sy1.4319@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... >> "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message >> Like I said, SCO does not exist. >> >Infact they are called Tarrantella now. No. That's a different company, different product. Originally the Unix products and the Tarantella product were owned by SCO. When the Caldera thing happened, briefly "SCO" disappeared, and http://www.sco.com would take you to what is now http://www.tarantella.com/ However, Caldera took back the SCO name and http://www.sco.com and are using "SCO Group" and "SCO" just as they were before all this. "SCO" is Unix products. Tarantella is a competitor to Citrix, etc. -- tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:33:13 +0100, Meinolf Sander wrote: =>* faeychild wrote: => =>>> Infact they are called Tarrantella now. =>> =>> Two R's and two L's so they are not confused with =>> the spider. Ironic eh! => =>I believe they're called Tarantella, while the spider's name =>is tarantula. => =>-- =>> I'm killfiling you for 30 days, for the same reason that I don't answer my =>> door on Sundays unless someone has called in advance: =>Shit, dude, you kill-filed me last week for 60 days. Can't you even do =>kill-files right? -- Alan Connor and Captain Dondo in c.o.l.misc "Tarantella" is a dance. -- Wolf Kirchmeir If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train? (Garrison Keillor) <just one w and plain ca for correct e-mail address>

Gregory Toomey wrote: > W wrote: > >> <snip> >> >> SCO does not exist, not since the Caldera take-over from a few years >> back. > > Well people talk about old SCO & new SCO, but it does exist > http://sco.com/ > > gtoomey Who is making the claims? Who is the party to the action in which those statements were made? What is said in a Court of Law is absolutely privileged, and can't be sued on. If SCO made the claims, and SCO as a company no longer exists, its successor may have inherited the right to sue, but not the liabilities. Certainly there is no inheritance of criminal liability. The Fraud Squad will understand all this. Doug (ex Victorian lawyer.) -- Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal. - Albert Camus.

> > "SCO" is Unix products. Tarantella is a competitor to Citrix, etc. well more clearly, SCO produces SCO unix operating systems - unixware and openserver (the old SCO unix), and some extensions that are closer to operating system than 'independant applications'. Tarantella produce applications to support Microsoft systems ... for various unix platforms.

"oracle" <oracle.spam.not.wanted@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message news:400656c7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > "W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message > news:LbrNb.342$Sy1.4010@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > > "W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message > > news:narNb.339$Sy1.4319@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > > > "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message > > > Like I said, SCO does not exist. > > > > > > > Infact they are called Tarrantella now. > > > > > > Technically, Tarantella was the Santa Cruz Operation. SCO Group was Caldera. > You might have called them SCO initially (along with everyone else) but the > company name was the Santa Cruz Operation which is not the SCO that everyone > talks about today. Well you might identify the people as that. But the products they produce tell a different story. Well SCO now produces openserver and unixware - showing the merge of Caldera and the old SCO. While Tarantella is a spin off of SCO - it is just *producing* the applications - not the same as SCO at all. If we follow where people move, does that mean we have to rename Coca Cola to Pepsi when the CEO of Pepsi changes job to become CEO of Coca Cola ? well no. We'd best identfy the 'factory' not the people if identifying the people fail to tell us anything about the product. In the case of software, the factory is the source code. The source code is called SCO. So the product is also called SCO. SCO is an operating system. To say Tarantella is close to being SCO is strange.- Tarantella dont *Produce* an operating system. They may well be selling OS's, or the labour associated with installing and maintaing OS's but they dont produce an OS. They produce applications. > >

"Leon." <noemail@noemail.noemail.com> wrote in message news:4007ed77$1@news.rivernet.com.au... > > "oracle" <oracle.spam.not.wanted@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message > news:400656c7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message > > news:LbrNb.342$Sy1.4010@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > > > "W" <still_@none.com> wrote in message > > > news:narNb.339$Sy1.4319@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au... > > > > "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message > > > > Like I said, SCO does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > Infact they are called Tarrantella now. > > > > > > > > > > Technically, Tarantella was the Santa Cruz Operation. SCO Group was > Caldera. > > You might have called them SCO initially (along with everyone else) but > the > > company name was the Santa Cruz Operation which is not the SCO that > everyone > > talks about today. > > Well you might identify the people as that. > > But the products they produce tell a different story. > > Well SCO now produces openserver and unixware - showing the merge of > Caldera and the old SCO. > > While Tarantella is a spin off of SCO - it is just *producing* the > applications - not the same as SCO at all. > > > If we follow where people move, does that mean we have to rename Coca Cola > to Pepsi when the CEO of Pepsi changes job to become CEO of Coca Cola ? well > no. > > We'd best identfy the 'factory' not the people if identifying the people > fail to tell us anything about the product. In the case of software, the > factory is the source code. The source code is called SCO. So the product is > also called SCO. SCO is an operating system. > > > To say Tarantella is close to being SCO is strange.- Tarantella dont > *Produce* an operating system. They may well be selling OS's, or the labour > associated with installing and maintaing OS's but they dont produce an OS. > They produce applications. > > Tarantella is the Santa Cruz Operation, while the SCO Group use to be Caldera International. Now having said that, way back when the changes happened, the then Santa Cruz Operation SOLD all of their UNIX technologies to Caldera. Now, not talking about the products which is SCO Unix that was sold to Caldera. SCO which everyone knows was in fact, the Santa Cruz Operation, which became Tarantella. And Caldera International became the SCO Group which sells the SCO range of products. So technically, there was no merger. So SCO now does exist as the SCO Group, but the old SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) does still exist Tarantella.

Gregory Toomey wrote: > 1. Last month in court, SCO's lawyer: > "I will proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint > that has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the > coming few days or no less than a week. And we'll put then fully in front > of the Court the three buckets we have outlined here, contract, trade > secrets and copyright." > > 2. But now: > Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations, Stowell > said. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case > with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue." > http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/13/HNscoshowscode_1.html > > > They have made various claims here in Australia too. I'm writing to > various government authorities to try to start a fraud investigation. > > gtoomey They're already on notice from the ACCC - have been for a while now. There'll be no fucking about with them, as SCO are sure to find out.

Gary Schmidt wrote: > W wrote: >> <snip> >> >> SCO does not exist, not since the Caldera take-over from a few years >> back. >> >> > > "The SCO Group" referred to as SCO, exists, and are who gtoomey was > refferring. > > "The Santa Cruz Operation" referred to as SCO, no longer exists, but the > SCO Group are an outgrowth or continuation of it. Keep up! > > Cheers, > Gary B-) The Santa Cruz Operation still exists, but it's now known as Tarantella.

Doug Laidlaw wrote: > Gregory Toomey wrote: > >> W wrote: >> >>> <snip> >>> >>> SCO does not exist, not since the Caldera take-over from a few years >>> back. >> >> Well people talk about old SCO & new SCO, but it does exist >> http://sco.com/ >> >> gtoomey > > Who is making the claims? SCO, of course. > Who is the party to the action in which those > statements were made? What is said in a Court of Law is absolutely > privileged, and can't be sued on. The media isn't a Court of Law by any stretch of the imagination. SCO's ridiculous cases haven't gone to court, either here or in the US. > If SCO made the claims, and SCO as a > company no longer exists, They do exist. In Australia, they're trading as "The SCO Group Australia and New Zealand" from 6 Berry Street, North Sydney. > its successor may have inherited the right to > sue, but not the liabilities. Certainly there is no inheritance of > criminal liability. The Fraud Squad will understand all this. The current SCO is the company who made those claims. > Doug (ex Victorian lawyer.)

W wrote: > "Gary Schmidt" <Gary.Schmidt@oz.quest.com> wrote in message > news:40062656.2030106@oz.quest.com... >> W wrote: >> > <snip> >> > >> > SCO does not exist, not since the Caldera take-over from a few years > back. >> > >> > >> >> "The SCO Group" referred to as SCO, exists, and are who gtoomey was >> refferring. >> >> "The Santa Cruz Operation" referred to as SCO, no longer exists, but the >> SCO Group are an outgrowth or continuation of it. Keep up! > > Like I said, SCO does not exist. Wrong.

On 2004-01-22, zyzzx <me@privacy.net> wrote: > The media isn't a Court of Law by any stretch of the imagination. SCO's > ridiculous cases haven't gone to court, either here or in the US. Oh, yes they have. Do you believe these lawsuits by SCO are just some kind of lark? Not hardly. SCO has done this before. http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html But, I think the thing that's gonna sink SCO is the fact they sold Linux at one time and the GPL will hold up in court. nb