1437769
story
Soko writes
"The scoop is on Groklaw - SCO's motion to dismiss is denied, and further activity in the case is now pending the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM litigation in Utah. If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?"
Anything left to kick around? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.usedwigs.com/weekly_32.html0 01/0001.html
http://www.annoying.com/nightmares/obsessive/02/0
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/002681.html
Or just google for 'bill watterson peeing OR pissing'
Take the time to read and understand the original comics, and you might see my point of view.
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those Calvin sticker perform a useful service. Whenever I see one, I immediatly know the driver is a jackass, and I give him wide berth. Kind of serves the same purpose as those old "Baby On Board" signs.
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2003-11-26/featur e.html/print.html [clevescene.com]
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe air, or even vacuum
Re:Anything left to kick around? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. Down the lane. Meant to catch it with my heel, caught it on my foot near the big toe. Limped for a week.
Dancing? Nah the Limbo (Score:2)
Re:Dancing? Nah the Limbo (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't look quite the same if you take the five day view [yahoo.com]. SCO were doing pretty badly until last week and then their stock price almost doubled. Maybe it was an April fool gone wrong.
Yes: If IBM didn't win it alreay - UNIX. B-) (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes:
If IBM didn't already win it in THEIR counter-suit: The remaining assets of SCO, including Netware and whatever remains of their claims to Unix.
Red Had could then, for instance, explicitly open-source it all - under multiple licenses. This would solve the "linux is a derived work of unix" issue from all time, and would also give anyone still stuck with a Netware deployment the opportunity to have it supported after SCO goes down.
graves (Score:4, Insightful)
however, I think it worth noting that SCO has essentially been screaming from the ramparts "We are SCO, we are greedy morons, we deserve to be removed from existence."
I just wanted to say that before a slew of soi-trolls began yammering about how biased /. is.
Re:graves (Score:3, Funny)
does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why it matters (Score:5, Interesting)
Novell != SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I don't think Novell would take the SCO route, all the signs are against it, and they have seen what is going to be the fate of SCO. But this is still a good point, a good reason that we really NEED the IBM issue to come to it's complete end.
Re:Novell != SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why it matters (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
What company would want to be despised to the extent that SCO is? If you're into death threats, hey, go for it. Whatever floats your boat.
Re:Why it matters (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to worry about Novell, worry about the fact that they're integrating Mono directly into Suse to crea
Re:does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish Microsoft would just cut to the chase and buy SCO so they could take over the lawsuit. I guess it's better to sue by proxy to avoid anti-trust issues, but I think we're all reasonably aware of who is really behind this fiasco. Follow the money trail.
Re:does it matter? (Score:2)
Re:does it matter? YES. (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, YES.
Remember, SCO's purpose here is not to win, or even survive, it's to spread disinformation and fear about open source and Linux. The *real* win comes when SCO is exposed as the passel of lying, greedy, goat-molesting asshats they are, and when their claims about "IP Problems with Linux" are shoved firmly where they belong (namely, certain executives' orifices.
Orifices? Orifii? What's the plural of orifice? Anybody?
Re:does it matter? YES. (Score:5, Funny)
Assholes.
Re:does it matter? YES. (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, SCO's purpose here is not to win, or even survive, it's to spread disinformation and fear about open source and Linux.
Sure seems that it's either that, or to make a lot of money on stock prices that jump around.
Proof of either motivation will be hard to come by, but it sure would be nice to see it come out in the open...
In the end, the legal team defending SCO will still maintain that "they were pursuing what they believed to be genuine issues with misappropriation of SCO intellectual propert
SCOrifice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:does it matter? YES. (Score:3, Interesting)
As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone wi
Re:does it matter? YES. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would anyone buy them? I am serious.
What does TSG have that is worth ANYTHING to another business? Their claim to the IP that is supposedly in Linux is being fought in court, and TSG has not yet shown they will (or even could possibly on a day when the weather forecast in Hades is particularly chilly) prevail in their claims of ownership.
They don't own office space (rented from Canopy), real estate (rented from Canopy), office furnishings (rented from Canopy), inventions or patents that are in demand. They don't have any key technology, resources, or even executives that have a clue. Why would anyone want to buy TSG?
With a book value of $1.31 per share, buying them AT MARKET would entail a premium of about 840% over what it would cost to start over from scratch.
The only asset they have is a lawsuit against IBM that, IF they win (not bloody likely, from what I have been reading) could be worth about 20 times their current market capitalization. Other than some Microsoft shills (Enderly? Didio?) they are not convincing many that they have any chance of winning, though - and I really think the Microsoft shills are not convinced, they are just selling their integrity to the highest bidder.
Again, why would anyone buy them?
I do agree, though, that it would be nice for SOMEONE to shut them up. SEC, DOJ, are you listening?
Re:does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree with you in that what is needed is a clear, unambiguous message to other would-be Microsoft serfs that doing stupid stuff gets you stepped on so firmly that there would be no other takes of the Proprietary Software pieces of silver.
Tha
cool (Score:5, Informative)
red hat don't have to pay for as much serious litigation as they would've done in the full on trial and they can sit back and relax while IBM pound away at SCO.
and in the event that IBM actually lose, then they're ready and waiting with a second shot.
Re:cool (Score:5, Insightful)
And none of this seems to be having much effect on the SCO share prices...if anything, then end of March saw an upswing in their value...
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=chartin
Re:cool (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is being sued by SCO for breaking "...its contract by allowing parts of SCO's Unix V source code, licensed to IBM for use in AIX, to be used in the rival Linux operating system kernel.", wheras RedHat is suing SCO for "...making unsubstantiated and untrue public statements attacking Red Hat Linux and the integrity of the Open Source software development process..."
However, a victory for SCO (and such things have happened in recent legal history) would push their share price (and general-public opinion of them) ever upwards, and set a precident that would then have to be overturned...
Noting is certain in love and law
Kicking SCO when they are down... (Score:3, Funny)
IBM will leave a pulp of tissue with the blood sucked out of it...
On the plus side you can make a decent soccer ball out of dried human body parts so Red Hat should be able to have a decent kick-around after winning the rights to the dismembered body parts.
Estimated value of this football game is around $1m as it will be considered "conceptual art" and snapped up in minutes.
The football match will be titled
"Icarus compressed"
"If they loose..." (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"If they loose..." (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"If they loose..." (Score:2, Funny)
"no matter how good you think your case is, at best you still only have a 50% chance of winning."
Tell him you're going to sue him for that comment as it caused you to collapse and die. Tell him you're claiming $50 billion for emotional damage and funeral expenses. Ask him if he's likely to lose sleep over your 50% chance of winning. Point out to him that he's a moron.
Re:"If they loose..." (Score:3, Funny)
There's One More Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better? Pin some of it on his Microsoft puppetmasters.
No (Score:5, Informative)
No, you can't. The standard for such charges are pretty high. First, for barratry, one would have to have solid evidence that Darl/SCO/Canopy acted in bad faith, and were suing for fun. You'd have to have evidence that not only are their claims crap, but THEY KNEW IT. Good luck.
For racketeering and extortion, which I'm assuming you're using to attack their "licensing" behavior, you won't get that either. Reason is because they at least have a reasonable claim on their actions - basically, it's not extortion for them to defend their rights, and until it's damned clear they don't have such rights (like after some court case), you'll lose this one too. Also, what's the "weapon" (ie, the "or else...") behind the extortion claim? A lawsuit? So in that case, you'd have to prove the barratry case before starting the extortion case, and that won't work on it's own.
So I know the /. crowd loves the idea of criminal actions against Darl, including stoning, hanging, or general torture. But it isn't realistic, and I think people should learn the *legal* background of such terms if this barratry argument is to keep going around and around for another couple of years like it has so far.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
First, they distribute Linux under the GPL. Then a while later, they go around telling people they owe $699 to them or they have to stop using Linux. How is that not extortion?
Here's how.. (Score:3, Informative)
First, because it's not clear, legally, at this point, that the GPL has invalidated their IP that could possibly be in linux. There are a number of reasons for this, which I won't belabor here, if for no other reason than it's been knocked around for over a year now. Yes, yes, we all "know" SCO's claims (whatever they are today) ar
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that an anonymous tip would be very different from getting a bunch of (obviously not legitimately obtained) documents and handing them to the police, who then wouldn't be able to use them.
Re:No (Score:2)
GPL Violations Harm Everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO's licensing behavior, as IBM has been pointing out [groklaw.net] in their Counterclaims to the SCO lawsuit (Counterclaim 6, para. 142-147 is especially relevant), violates the GPL, because SCO distributed Linux and other GPL software, then attempted to alter the terms of the license using SCOsource.
Paragraph 147 shows what kinds of damages open source developers have a right to expect:
SCO is unpopular with "the /. crowd" precisely because a significant number of them are Linux and open source developers. Yes, all open source projects get tarred with the same brush in the non-tech public (read: investors) when SCO claims the GPL is unconstitutional and threatens to sue end-users. These guys aren't multimillionaires being bankrolled by M$ and don't have the money, time, or ability to get into a legal fight with SCO. They all lose customers and support until the lawsuits are over. When the Yankee Group publishes yet another TCO study [groklaw.net] that says "Linux is great, but, oops, the costs of indemnity from legal challenges pending in the courts forced us to revise our cost estimate upward," businesses learn that Linux is risky until the court cases are over. Developers lose.
Someone must be responsible! Someone must pay for this damage! The thought that Darl McBride, Canopy, M$ et al. will come away from these lawsuits, no matter what, with their reputations, fortunes, business practices, quotidian lives intact is like a maddening thorn in the brain of "the /. crowd". That's why everyone keeps asking about criminal charges... not because they really hope to see these people in jail, but because they are yearning for justice.
It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
...and their management team needs to face criminal charges and do the jail time if found guilty.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Informative)
1. Novell claims to own the Unix copyright still. SCO does have the right to license Unix code though. It's not stolen.
2. Unix (for lack of a better name; pre-SCO) apparently used some code that Linus Torvalds wrote. (Unix also used some code written by Donald Knuth or someone like that.) Linus isn't a company though.
If neither of those are it, then I don't know to what your parent was refe
Irony in the worst (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's hope this leads to a faster resolution of this most ridiculous case brought upon by SCO.
Re:Irony in the best (Score:3, Funny)
Install Linux in them. (Score:5, Funny)
When Red Hat gets their turn, maybe they can install linux in them and call them a badger.
Public Opinion on the SCO case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case (Score:5, Insightful)
I can say that my car shifts smoothly and corners nicely, but I have no basis for comparison since I have never owned any other car. Has he seen any proprietary code? Thats what I want to know.
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71
I'll quote for you since you are on
"...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
"...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case (Score:5, Insightful)
The article also notes:
Although it goes on to say that most of these hacks seem to be due to backwards-compatability. However, having said that, bad code is bad code. A hack is a hack. And it would seem that indeed, even the vaunted Microsoft produces its share of hacks.
It would seem this has less to do with Open Source vs. Proprietary software than simply being the nature of the beast.
Slashdotters, feel free to examine Panko website (Score:5, Informative)
He's got a number of websites, one of which is here [pankosecurity.com].
He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft.
Re:Slashdotters, feel free to examine Panko websit (Score:5, Funny)
a) uses Frontpage
b) doesn't change the title of the pages from "New Page 1"
Worrying.
"Market Focussed" book (Score:3, Interesting)
Up-to-Date Market-Focused Coverage
As discussed below, some security certifications, such as CompTIA's Security+, pride themselves in being vendor neutral. Although this has some theoretical
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case (Score:3, Interesting)
I would ask him for evidence of where this stolen code is and could he please produce an example. Accusing someone of stealing is quite a serious allegation.
Claiming that "Linux has insurmountable legal trouble" is an opinion he is not qualified to give and he is expressing such an opinion in his prof
It's not "almost over". (Score:5, Interesting)
"Almost over"?
The SCO trial with IBM hasn't even begun yet.
There are one or two other cases with SCO (vs. Novell and/or Red Hat) -- I don't know what phase those are in.
They are still in the discovery phase in the case of SCO vs. IBM, where they are debating what evidence will be included in the trial, and both IBM and SCO are pressing each other for information they believe is there, or for information that one side claims is there, but the other side claims does not exist.
This thing may never reach trial -- I assume that is SCO's goal. IBM wants it to, so that precedents are set and issues are settled. SCO just wants people to do what they tell them and they want money. They want to keep things murky and scary.
"If" they lose against IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's hope and pray to $DEITY_NAME that SCO will lose. As I'm now 100% sure that SCO is just Microsoft's puppet, realize that this isn't just SCO (a piddly little company) versus IBM (a behemoth). It's Microsoft versus IBM. I'm pretty scared... how 'bout you?
Re:"If" they lose against IBM? (Score:2)
Kinda like the Vietnam war: it was big gun USA against the piddling little Viet Cong, who were really just standins for the huge USSR.
Wait a minute, I don't really want THAT simile, do I?
pray to $DEITY_NAME (Score:2, Funny)
Stock value? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stock value? (Score:2)
Re:Stock value? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stock value? (Score:2, Funny)
No news is good news,
Bad news is good news,
and Good news is good news.
Re:Stock value? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't know exactly, but my first suspicion would be the buyback [prnewswire.com] program. Choice quote [groklaw.net] (click link for source):
"'Some critics believe the buyback frenzy was nothing more than executives seeking to maximize their own wealth. 'They boost the price in the short term and then sell their shares,' says Kathleen M. Kahle..."
Definetely check that Groklaw link for more information. I'm just a programmer, so really, I don't know what I'm talking about. But the buyback program seems like a good place to start.
Re:Stock value? (Score:2)
Simple, it is public knowledge that Microsoft has put aside about 80 million dollars for this, so they're obviously artificially keeping SCO's stock high by buying shares.
two front war (Score:4, Informative)
As I see it, and I could be wrong, if SCO wins against IBM, then they make Red Hat's case. Even if SCO loses, they've still got some real damages claims to deal with.
Worse, it means they're going to have to put-up or shut-up proving their accusations for the Red Hat case, evidence, which if admitted, could bolster IBM's defense.
Either way, SCO has failed to learn from history.
This sucks ! (Score:5, Insightful)
RedHat tried to get SCO to shut the f**** up until the SCO vs IBM trial has gone through. The judge answers that although their claim (of SCO being a liar scaring their customers), they have to wait and see until the other trial is over.
In other words, SCO may carry on lying and RedHat can do nothing but cry over their and Linux' reputation until IBM is done.
And when IBM is done, there'll be nothing left of SCO for RedHat to be compensated with.
No, really, this is not a victory for RedHat...
Stephane
Re:This sucks ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the purpose of the RedHat case was to make SCO shut up, and the case has been delayed pending the IBM case, then RedHat is being denied justice pending another case. Since SCO started the IBM case, they are effectively in the drivers seat on both. That denies RedHat justice, under the control of SCO. RedHat should get something, like some type of temporary restraining order against SCO at least until SCO clears up their IBM case.
Re:This sucks ! (Score:3, Informative)
SCO knows this, that's why they keep screwing around just to keep the courts tied up for as long as possible.
In this case, the real question is 'Why?'. Why did the judge delay? Was the judge overwhelmed with BS and confused as result? And can Redhat appeal the judges ruling to delay?
"Will there be anything left to kick around..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat isn't looking to kick them around after they lose to IBM. Red Hat has a few goals: bring more of SCO's actions to light and into court by putting them on the legal defensive; helping IBM by bringing these things to light and legitimizing IBM's arguments if they win; hedging their bets in case IBM loses (if IBM loses, Red Hat's in big trouble, so this pre-emptive strike may help protect them or at least raise money for their future legal defense).
I think all Red Hat cares about is IBM winning. After they win it doesn't matter if there's anything left to kick around.
Of course the usual IANAL applies...
Re:"Will there be anything left to kick around..." (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if IBM loses this round, IBM will definitely appeal. That means the case will be drawn out even longer, and SCO will burn through more reserve cash. They can't exactly sell any more licenses to Microsoft for funding, and if they file against more corporations, that means more costs and more distractions which probably won't generate any more cash to fund the ongoing lawsuit against IBM. Compared to SCO, IBM has the funding behind it similar to Microsoft. IBM won't settle this either; they have too much pride to settle with such an insignificant company as SCO. If they did, they'd set a precident for more insignificant companies to try to sue them over dubious claims. The truth is, IBM is going to go thermonuclear and I doubt they'll sell-out to Microsoft in the end like Time Warner and now Sun have done.
SCO's Motion to dismiss Red Hat's Complaint Denied (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's an idea (Score:3, Funny)
We could install Linux on a dead Darl.
Wouldnt it be alanis-morrissette-like ironic?
Imagine Darl, eyes glazed over with a bluish skintone, shuffling himself about arms outstretched, moaning "liceeeeeeeense... LICEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNSE".
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Funny)
SCO's stock nosedive begins (Score:5, Informative)
Could be a very long day for SCO.
Playing the two cases off each other... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Playing the two cases off each other... (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO in context to the article (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue at hand in the article and context is SCO will not be battling Red Hat and IBM at the same time. The case against SCO from Red Hat wasn't dismissed but deferred. Red Hat claims damages from SCO in regards to harming the Linux kernel because of the lawsuit and publicity towards suing IBM over the Unix core system.
In context against IBM - that is another story and we'll be seeing that unfold. In my opinion that is going to be a tough case to win for SCO. Remember SCO was a happy go lucky company and then Linux IPO Caldera Systems [slashdot.org] bought SCO [practical-tech.com]. I can't see a Linux company coming to power and suing others over the Unix System even though IBM already had a license for the Unix core system.
Now back to Red Hats Case. RH is suing SCO basically over the suite against IBM. I seriously doubt that RH will win this case because the grounds of suing someone because you sued someone. RH is must prove malice in the context of SCO public statements. This is very hard to prove.
The break it down here is what's going to happen. First RH has to wait, IBM will win, RH will lose the Case against SCO, SCO will loose market share from other litigation cases yet to be determined.
This ruling is NOT good for RedHat (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the point of the RedHat vs SCO lawsuit is to eliminate the FUD surrounding Linux. This would allow RedHat to continue to market its products without its prospective customers shying away due to potential legal issues. When the judge ruled that the case is effectively on hold until the IBM case is decided, the judge effectively denied RedHat its best legal opportunity to end the SCO FUD machine in any useful timeframe. As the old saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied."
Re:This ruling is NOT good for RedHat (Score:4, Interesting)
This is very good news for Red Hat, as it provides at least three opportunities between now and next April for them to convince the judge that SCO is dragging its feet on the IBM case, being obstructive in discovery, etc. etc., and so persuade the judge to deny SCO's Motion To Dismiss and to make the case move forwards.
Conversely, SCO has to justify its actions every three months without upsetting the judge.
If Red Hat plays the situation correctly, this delay may only last the first 90 days, since there is already ample evidence to show that SCO has been dilatory at best in its handling of the IBM discovery motions.
I don't think it's as black as you paint it.
Re:This ruling is NOT good for RedHat (Score:3)
A couple of questions (Score:3, Interesting)
2: If we all know they're going to lose, why do people keep posting stories about it?
I don't want to troll, but I really don't think anyone here things SCO has a chance in hell. We also know that when they lose this lawsuit, they're going to go out of business and a year or two afterwards, nobody will be thinking about them. So why are we paying so much attention to this. I mean, the whole thing is really a non-event and by constantly running stories about it, you're only helping Red Hat. Any publicity they get just makes them seem more legitimate. They're not legitimate at all.
I really can't wait for them to just lose their case, go out of business, and be out of everyone's mind.
Re:A couple of questions (Score:2)
they are wasting out of money anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO lucks out again (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a small gain for Redhat on one side (as if anyone thought this would get dismissed), but a bigger loss for Redhat on the other (as if we thought RH would get screwed for possibly 2 more years with no recourse).
*If* they lose? (Score:4, Funny)
Red Hat's suit (unlike SCO's) not about money (Score:3, Informative)
-Runz
My new word fo the day - Lackadaisical (Score:3, Funny)
And now thanks to SCO and the RedHat lawsuit [lwn.net] (page 5) referenced by the Groklaw article [groklaw.net] we might see an expansion of the definition for lawyers and geeks alike...
3) Lacking urgency and passionate conviction: "[SCO is]
But they can't be doing that bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Worthless lazy judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine that company A's claims are headline news in dozens of publications for over a year. Sure, company B could call company A a liar, but a lot of people will avoid beer from company B, just to be safe.
The scox case is exactly like that. Msft/scox is loadly claiming that Linux is "contaminated" with UNIX code. Yet, after an entire year, scox offers no evidence.
After sitting on scox's laughable motion to dismiss for over six months. The judge *finally* declares: "I'm too stupid and lazy to set a court date, or to tell scox to lay off the unproven statements against scox's competitors. So, I'll just allow scox to unfairly bash the competition, maybe Utah will do something and spare me the trouble."
This decision could not have possibly been more favorable to scox. Maybe the USA could learn something from Germany's justice system.
Re:Hint at the market reaction .... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hint at the market reaction .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the people running IBM are a little bit smarter than that. They have invested in the success of Linux, and thus have a vested interest in crushing any public impression of weakness of the GPL in the courts. For the price of just legal fees, this is a much better deal for them than buying a stock that's overvalued by