Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

IBM Subpoenas HP, Baystar, Sun & Microsoft 196

nicolaiplum writes "CNet is reporting that IBM is sending subpoenas to HP, Baystar, Sun and Microsoft requiring them to disclose most of their dealings with SCO over UNIX licensing and litigation." From the article: "The subpoenas demand that Microsoft, HP, Sun and BayStar hand over a range of information, including details of their dealings with SCO, by March 7. They will also have to appear in court later in March to give depositions." Groklaw also has links to each of the subpoenas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Subpoenas HP, Baystar, Sun & Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:49PM (#14779342) Journal
    The reporter got that aspect wrong. Read the original documents and it becomes clear that the recipients are "commanded" to appear in various lawyers' offices.
    • That's not the only thing they got wrong. The subheading in the article refers to "IBM's version of Linux". Unless, IBM has done something new, there isn't any such thing.
    • by hayden ( 9724 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:56PM (#14779948)
      ... "commanded" to appear in various lawyers' offices.
      At which point they will be "commanded" to bend over and grab their ankles for IBM. Suddenly secretely supporting a company to launch a bullshit attack on a competitor doesn't seem so funny. And also picking a legal fight with the company that tied up the Justice Department with so much legal bullshit they gave up on their antitrust suit probably wasn't the best idea either.
      • At which point they will be "commanded" to bend over and grab their ankles for IBM. Suddenly secretely supporting a company to launch a bullshit attack on a competitor doesn't seem so funny.

        I don't think there is the slightest chance of any information comming out that would suggest that. Microsoft's consultations with their internal and external counsel are covered by an absolute privilege. IBM cannot subpoena that material.

        I doubt that the Microsoft lawyers wrote a note to SCO saying 'here is $16 mil

    • In the USA, lots of things happen in lawyer's offices, which in other countries, would happen in a lower court. Typically a court stenographer would be present.
  • by Salo2112 ( 628590 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:51PM (#14779351)
    the entire supply of Immodium for the state of Utah is missing.
  • a well-known fact. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:52PM (#14779362)
    Microsoft bought thousands of SCO licenses [] in an effort to undermine Linux -- not as a way of giving credibility to any of SCO's claims, but rather as a way to fund SCO's FUD campaign, in what amounts to a cash donation!

    If anything should be subpoena'd its Microsoft's internal documents giving a risk/benefit analysis of making a cash donation to SCO in the form of to-Microsoft useless Linux licenses.
    • Maybe they bought them for their System V based product known as Services for Unix (also built into Windows Server 2003 R2)?
    • They probably need to get some other discovery from Microsoft to document the existence of such analyses and a basis for why they need such information.
      • by Aim Here ( 765712 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:26PM (#14779640)
        Well that's not the only reason IBM is calling Microsoft to the stand.

        IBM wants everything Microsoft has on the SCO/Linux battle partly because SCO CEO Darl Mcbride was emailing Microsoft regularly over something that's not quite public yet, immediately prior to the lawsuit, and also IBM needs everything Microsoft has relating to Unix because SCO gave M$ and Sun a clean bill of health as regards Unix. IBM might be trying to compare it's practices relating to the Unix code base against those of Microsoft and Sun in order to show that it was at least as compliant as those two.
        • How do we know that Darl was emailing MS regularly? I mean, that is kind of hard and I would think they have a good security system. Not to mention, Bill and Darl could be friends or have some other legitimate relationship - like business partners.
          • by Aim Here ( 765712 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @09:42PM (#14781460)
            IBM found out about the emails in discovery for SCO vs IBM.

            As for what's in the emails, well that's subject of speculation. It might be about the $10 million worth of Unix licenses that Microsoft 'bought' and SCO lied about in their court or SEC filings. It might be about the $50-70 million worth of funding from Baystar that Microsoft helped put SCO's way (that's documented in the Halloween documents somewhere on for no apparent reason. Or it might be that Bill Gates was doing some babysitting for Darl or something. You'll just have to watch the court filings for clues.
        • Perhaps he also e-mailed g$$gle or $ony or kri$py kreme.

          I can't wait for the next slashdot version where I can give minus points to comments containing keywords. The first on my list will be M$ and micro$oft.

        • SCO CEO Darl Mcbride was emailing Microsoft regularly over something that's not quite public yet

          These were probably on the same server as the e-mails.
        • Does this mean if IBM loses (please don't die laughing until you read the whole reply), that Microsoft will have to rewrite NT because of all those methods and concepts used by the former Unix programmers who wrote NT that are part of SCO's precious IP?

          Sadly, having been involved in a number of dealings with judges and American law, this could actually still turn out bad. Judges are lacking in basic skills and make rulings that are completely OTT and wrong. IBM, could still lose. Although, they have a grea
    • From the third hit on that search, I get the following:

      "Microsoft was also one of the first companies to buy into SCO's licensing program, taking two licenses from SCO worth more than $12 million, according to sources close to SCO."

      Not exactly thousands, and while it's a lot of money, it's a tiny drop in the ocean for MS. They also do have Unix products (eg Services for Unix), so perhaps they were just covering their arses for that? They're probably getting pretty sick of being sued...
      • Not exactly thousands, and while it's a lot of money, it's a tiny drop in the ocean for MS. They also do have Unix products (eg Services for Unix), so perhaps they were just covering their arses for that? They're probably getting pretty sick of being sued...

        If MS were tired of being sued, they'd stop the abusive business tactics that get them sued. Of course there is nothing unusual about MS buying licenses from SCO:

        • IBM gives MS a hand-up by buying first PC OS
        • MS bites the IBM hand that feeds it with
    • While we all hate SCO, and most of you guys hate MS - I am pretty sure there is no legal precedent restricting one company from making a donation to another legal company. Even if in their internal documents you find "We are giving SCO money so they can sue Linux" the worst you will have is some bad PR towards MS. There is nothing illegal about it - hence nobody is goign to subpoena it.
      • by Anonym0us Cow Herd ( 231084 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @07:04PM (#14780551)
        It is illegal to use anti-competitive acts to maintain or extend a monopoly. Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly.
        • It's my understanding that those laws were origionally written for government granted monoplies, such as Phone, Electric, Garbage, Water, Sewer, and Gravity providers.

          The idea being that you can't have 12 different electric lines, 8 different water pipes, and a half dozen fleets of garbage trucks servicing the same neighborhood, so the local government decides which single company will provide each service. You used to only be allowed to use phone company phones on phone company lines, at an outragous marku
      • by sepluv ( 641107 ) <> on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @07:23PM (#14780713)
        Yes, but if TSG didn't provide them with anything in return (especially if TSG's only business at the time was lawsuits) then Microsoft (like anyone who donates towards a lawsuit) has to pay the costs and damages awarded to IBM, Redhat et al if^Wwhen TSG loses if^Wwhen TSG goes bankrupt.

        Also, depending on the local laws, MS and TSG may be prosecuted for maintenance (the supporting of a litigant by a third party that enables the litigant to carry on a claim when they otherwise would be unable to and/or where the third party does not have a bona fide interest in the suit), barratry (inciting a third party to take out groundless or repeated claims against other third parties), or champerty (maintenance with the hope of profit for yourself). Even in states where these are not unlawful, doing them clandestinely may be.

        Oh...and don't forget that MS is probably in contempt of the court's anti-trust ruling in DOJ v. MS...oh...and that the SEC were investigating possible offences of money laundering between MS, the Royal Bank of Canada and TSG.

    • by sepluv ( 641107 )
      Looks like not only is the PIPE fairy connection unravelling, but MS is in it deep elsewhere as fresh anti-trust complaints are filed in the EU & US.

      According to Yahoo! News [] and BBC News [], a fresh anti-trust complaint has been filed with the EC against Microsoft by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (composed of IBM, Oracle, RealNetworks, Sun & Nokia). Although the complaint was filed privately, ECIS hinted that it related to MS Office.

      Also, computer manufacturer, Tangent, filed a fe

  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @04:52PM (#14779367) Homepage
    If you buy in to the theory that MSFT funded the SCO follies in part because they wanted to slow the adoption of Linux in light of the delay in fielding Vista, then it's only sweet that IBM would be dropping on Redmond in time for MSFT's dirty laundry to get a good airing in court before the big roll out this fall.

    Talk about a turd in the punch bowl. Hehe.

    • things could get interesting if there ends up being an injunction delaying the release of vista.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      If you buy in to the theory that MSFT funded the SCO follies in part because they wanted to slow the adoption of Linux in light of the delay in fielding Vista, then it's only sweet that IBM would be dropping on Redmond in time for MSFT's dirty laundry to get a good airing in court before the big roll out this fall.

      You know of course that the good folks at Microsoft are busy shredding and deleting incriminating documents right now, while their landsharks are divided into two teams, one in closed door meeting

    • The anti-trust trial in no way hindered the rollout of Windows 98.
    • There is a very real possiblity they are setting up to sue MS. If they get cleared of the SCO case and if they can prove that MS used SCO to impede IBM then they can get huge bucks both from Sun and MS. MS would definately rather settle then go to court.
      • I don't think IBM is looking for settlements, they are a lioness on the hunt. IBM is looking for blood, following the money trail.

        "Non quatro" is playing. If I were MS, I would be concerned about IBM's blood lust revealing some anti-trust evidence and turning it into Kolar-Kotelly. The terms of the settlement with DoJ are NOT friendly to officers if they are caught with their hands in to cookie jar.

        This is going to be fun...I'm sure there is some piggy type squealing going on in Redmond right now.

        • I've said many times that if I had to choose a corporate mortal enemy, I'd pick IBM. They just aren't so good at "smiting their enemies".
          • You do realize that people refer to IBM's lawyers as the Nazgul?

            Frankly, the reason they don't appear so high up on your radar is because their opponents rarely bother to go to court. They give in; because they know if they go to court IBM will crush them. IBM's legal staff dots every I, and crosses every T. Not to mention a massive bankroll, a huge patent portfolio, and the services of the best lawfirm in the country.
      • If you look at the history of how Bill Gates screwed IBM, if there is anyone who IBM hates more than TSG it is MS, so I don't see IBM settling anything.
        • IBM screwed itself over twice regarding Microsoft. First, they rejected DOS, and Gates ended up buying that, thus creating MS-DOS. Later on, IBM was able to develop from Windows something, but they didn't take advantage of the opportunity.
  • Depositions (Score:3, Informative)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:02PM (#14779459)
    They will also have to appear in court later in March to give depositions.

    Actually, the depositions will occur at law offices near the headquarters of the companies in question. Microsoft's, for instance, will occur in Seattle.

  • I forgot about this! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:16PM (#14779561) Homepage
    Damn! It has been so long since any new developments or any old discussion has been brought up about it, finally there is some interesting activity in the SCO v. IBM case. Still, I have to wonder why IBM is willing to spend the money for the additional activity? Is "fighting back" worth it? What do they expect to gain on this?

    Personally, I can identify with wanting to fight back by exposing the sources of all the scuffle. But if I didn't have money to throw away and no easily identifiable profit motive, I just can't imagine myself doing it. Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?
    • IBM has previously made decisions based on emotion, including revenge and spite.

      See the dealins with OS/2. There is some post on usenet from a microsoft programmer somewhere who was working with IBM on OS/2 detailing just how strange the decisions that IBM management was making. IBM doesn't need a reason for this. This might just be revenge for Windows 3.0 destroying OS/2 and ruining IBM's future on desktop machines.
    • Well, IANAL, but if it turns out that other companies were funding SCO to get up to its tricks then they might then have a case for prosecuting them for something. There could be a proffit motive there.

      Plus being shown to have been the innocent victim of a massive slur conspiricy would probably be good PR.

    • I'd say IBM wants to slam dunk this case, to show any future SCO-types that they won't lie down for this kind of crap. The profit motive is in clearing the way for smooth sailing for Linux, since IBM has staked a lot on it.
    • Well, if they could prove that MS was backing this, that's bad behavior from someone already in Anti-Trust trouble. Maybe they can somehow get punitive damages for it? Or they could be planning on increasing their support of Linux in enterprises, like shipping it with more of their servers? If the R&D is getting to be too much on their OS. It may also be a warning to everyone else in the world: Don't screw with IBM. They mean business (no pun intended)
    • Why (Score:3, Insightful)

      by overshoot ( 39700 )
      Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?

      1. It's good to be respected.
      2. Fear is a reasonable substitute for respect.
      3. Most of IBM's business depends on others trusting them with confidential information. SCOX, very publicly, impugned IBM's trustworthiness.
      4. The Nazgul hadn't been fed lately.

      Assign whatever weights you like.

      • The reason (Score:5, Informative)

        by jgoemat ( 565882 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @06:08PM (#14780067)
        Microsoft and Sun paid tens of millions of dollars to SCO in early 2003. Caldera (who is now SCO) had run their Linux business into the ground and after purchasing the UnixWARE from Santa Cruz in 2001 (to purportedly make Linux and Unix play better together), they ran it into the ground as well. Without that influx of cash, SCO would not have had the money to pursue the lawsuit against IBM. It just happens that SUN (IBM's largest Unix competitor) and Microsoft (who has a lot to gain from the discrediting of Linux) paid tens of millions of dollars to SCO and the only substantial thing they got in return was the lawsuit against IBM. IBM is also seeking information from SUN and HP because SCO gave them a clean bill of health, and they have distributed and made public much of the information that forms the basis of the lawsuit against IBM.
        • Thanks for explaining to the lurkers.

          FWIW, my GrokLaw handle is the same as my /. one.

        • Re:The reason (Score:3, Informative)

          by ratsg ( 544275 )
          Sun has stated many times that the money headed to SCO was to open source Solaris. Unfortunately, there timing was off from a PR perspective.
          • by jgoemat ( 565882 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @08:32PM (#14781122)
            But I found it []:
            "There were hundreds of encumbrances to open sourcing Solaris. Some of them we had to buy out, others we had to eliminate. We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code -- I couldn't say anything about that at the time, but now I can tell you that we paid them that license fee to expand our rights to the code,"
            That really puts a hurting on SCO, IBM is probably after the evidence of this as well. SCO has pretty much given up on proving copyright violations, if you look at their oppositions to IBM's 10th counterclaim and more recent filings, they actually had the audacity to say that it was never about copyright. Anyway, their current theory is that IBM violated their contract with AT&T because they gave Linux inside information about how UNIX works, enabling it to grow much faster than it should have. Of course they have admitted themselves that there were no trade secrets left in Unix (Kevin McBride to Judge Wells in open court) when they dropped their trade secret claims back in early '04. So they are claiming that some intangible and indefinable quality of UNIX was given to Linux by IBM in violation of their contract. If SUN is open-sourcing Solaris with SCO's blessing, they really can't claim that IBM did anything wrong.
    • by yo_tuco ( 795102 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:34PM (#14779725)
      Still, I have to wonder why IBM is willing to spend the money for the additional activity?

      Because the drama, oops I mean SCO vs IBM case, is not over. It is still in the descovery process.

      From 20214214 []

      22-Dec-05 - Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material

      27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material

      17-Mar-06 - Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)

      As you can see, we're in the part that I've highlighted in red [bold], which is over on March 17. It's all about defenses now. In other words, SCO filed it's list of ha ha allegedly misused material, and now IBM gets to do discovery to establish its defenses. Don't forget the expert witnesses also:

      14-Apr-06 - Initial Expert Reports
      19-May-06 - Opposing Expert Reports
      16-Jun-06 - Rebuttal Expert Reports
      10-July-06 - Final Deadline for Expert Discovery

    • Since corporations generally lack human emotional response, I can only assume there is good strategety and/or profit motivation. Anyone care to speculate?

      Now Sam Palmisano gets to sit in court, stare over at Darl, put his arm out with his fingers forming a pinch while looking at Darl through the arc, and squeeze while saying "I'm CRUSHING YOUR HEAD, I'm CRUSHING YOUR HEAD"!

    • The story I hear about IBM is that if you file a pattent lawsuit against them for any amount under $10K, they generally just write you a check.

      However, every so often instead of rolling over, they will fight the pattent full force, attempting to completely destroy you. The idea is to supress completely frivilous pattent lawsuits.

      I see SCO as a simalar case. IBM may wish to fight SCO to prove a point: "do not fuck with us."
    • IBM has fought back becasuse IBM believes in Linux. (Or at least it's profit-making potential.) If IBM had settled out of court or simply bought SCO outright, that would have lent an aire of legitimacy to SCO's original claims of copyrighted code contamination in Linux. That would have cost IBM far more than the settlement, or the legal defense of the suit.

    • 1) Digging through all of SCO's dealings and getting them put in the public record makes them available as ammunition in any future legal disputes. You can even analyze them to see if they support bringing a private antitrust claim against Microsoft (which, since Lenovo means IBM no longer has to buy Windows from MS, is nowadays reasonably possibile).

      2) Fighting this has been good PR for IBM. IBM serving as a defender of Free/Open Source Software may well translate into additional sales.

      3) Bad PR for comp
  • Microsoft's lawyer... um, I mean Lionel Hutz: 'Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."'
  • IBM scares the crap out of me and i'm just a hacker-in-a-cube. Reminds me of a joke that went something like when we're all standing in line at the gates of heaven God's going to say "ok you can come in" then look over at IBM's legal department for a knod before actually opening the gates.

    • i'm just a hacker-in-a-cube
      Is that the geeky version of the ship-in-a-bottle?
    • by steve_l ( 109732 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @07:35PM (#14780791) Homepage
      Yeah, when all this is over and the books are written, SCO's choice of targets for lawsuits is going to go down there as sensible as invading russia proved to various european nation states over the centuries.

      First they pick IBM, who probably have more lawyers than R&D engineers. Then, for collateral damage, they pick on a car company, what was it, Daimer-Chrystler. I mean, car companies. They have legal departments on 24-hour call waiting to dismiss the classic "I ran over a bus queue of 8 people while drunk, it was the fault of your ABS system" lawsuits coming in every day. Having someone sue you over linux violations is just a spare time activity.

      On the other hand, from the lawyers perspective, going up against well funded legal departments guarantees large amounts of cash coming your way...
    • Maybe I was a boy when IBM was the big bad monopoly but at least IBM made quality compenents and was friendly to hackers.

      Microsoft was crap which is what started my anti-ms attitude.

      I trust IBM over MS and Sun. IBM is not the same as the old and the old at least supported open standards and good quality engineering and technology unlike MS which is still trying to write a stable OS that IBM has had since the 1970's. MS would have went extinct if the free market applied to them.

      But since IBM gave away their
  • by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:24PM (#14779625)
    The SCOX Yahoo Finance Board [] is actually a good source of information and comments as well. Contrary to the usual stock board the regulars there are quite knowledgable and try to keep the spam cleaned up. Which is not to say there are no trolls, but any rating above a 4 is usually good.


    • If only that were true. The majority of highly-rated posts dwell on off-topic political commentaries, ridicule of the board's blacklist, and various distracting but irrelevant side-shows. (Thankfully, meta-discussions of Groklaw have subsided.) There is a lot of good information, but I would use Yahoeuvre [] and start with posts having at least 20 recs.
  • Not yet?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by robpoe ( 578975 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:35PM (#14779732)
    Why have I not seen a comment yet that said

    And in Redmond today, a chair flew out of Ballmer's office and a scream was heard "I'm going to f*$#ing kill IBM!!!!!!"

    Oops..I just made it.

  • Conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by whitespiral ( 941984 )
    So will it end up all being a conspiracy masterminded by Microsoft to kill Linux? But Microsoft always plays fair, who would have thought!
  • Depositions rarely go on the date set forth in the subpeona. You can expect delays in getting the documents requested which are needed with time for examination before taking the depositions. That's pretty much par for the course in civil litigation; you set an arbitrary date and the parties later agree on the real date. The more interesting question is why IBM waited until now to request this info. If they wanted to assert additional claims against MS or Sun, it's pretty late in the day to be adding partie
    • 27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material

      17-Mar-06 - Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)

      This would be fact discovery relating to the material which IBM allegedly misused. They're looking for evidence that their use is no different from the companies that threw SCO a bone.
    • My guess is IBM may have recently come by some new info, probably from some insider and probably in the form of some smoking gun documents.

      Two reasons:

      1. In late December, the Court ordered SCOX to turn over a few thousand documents that they had been claiming were priveleged. The privelege claims were pretty thin, but they fought hard for them. "Smoking guns" isn't too bold a conclusion.
      2. The "what are we accusing you of" phase of discovery is now over, it's defense time. By waiting until it was too lat
  • by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @05:42PM (#14779798)
    Bill Gates on the stand: "Well, you see, it went like this your honor, App..."

    Steve Jobs yelling from the courtroom: "Shutup! Shutup now Bill!!!"

    Judge banging gavel: "Order [bang, bang, bang] There'll be order in the court room!"

    RMS standing and asking for calm: "Judge. Notice that I did not call you 'Your Honor' as I do not honor the authority that you claim to hold. I will not place my hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth. The Bible is a book of fairy tales and fables for which I hold no respect..."

    Steve Ballmer jumps to his feet and grabs a chair: "Jesus H. Christ [Throws a chair at RMS] This guy is a fuckin' loon... how the fuck did he get in here?"
    • It's worse! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by capt.Hij ( 318203 )
      In some ways the scenario is worse than that. They will be taking depositions in private, and there will not be a judge present. Can you imagine being the poor nerd being asked questions with both the MS lawyers and IBM lawyers leering at you from all sides of the table. I wouldn't go in that room without the protection of being in a steel cage hanging from the ceiling.
  • In theory onces this goes to court, that means we can read the deposistions right? All the material and evidence (depositions) would then be a part of the public record right?

    It would be great to read what they are actually talking about and see how both sides see this issue, not just what the online press conjectures about everything.
  • This will cost IBM countless of millions of dollars over the next few years. Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend a few grand and pay Bruce Willis to kill Gates and Ballmer? Or why not build a terminator? Oh yeah, it would have Lenovo parts and turn on the americans in a blink. Darn chinese are too smart.
  • Subpoenas (Score:5, Informative)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @06:17PM (#14780154) Journal
    We should all remember, Subpoenas are a commonly utilized legal term which is needed to get another party to comply. Most large companies are not even allowed to give any of their documents (which have other legal bindings on them, probably for non-disclosure) without a subpoena. People just tend to think "subpoena omg"
  • mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by mtenhagen ( 450608 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @06:24PM (#14780220) Homepage
    I created a mirror [] for the subpoenas, including easy to read html versions.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I want to know what Rob Enderle has to say. I haven't heard much from him lately and I need his "forward looking emerging technology advisory firm" and the insight only they, ok - he, can give.

    Mr. Enderle, are you there? Should I be concerned that IBM is stealing all the thunder while SCO continually gets bitch slapped out of the headlines (and court)? SCO is still going to school the technology world, right? You predicted they have a solid case and not to rule them out. Are they still a sure bet? Aft
    • by cnerd2025 ( 903423 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @09:47PM (#14781486)

      Auto-reply from Robert Enderle:

      I would like to say that I never made any speculation on SCO and that I simply meant they should have their day in court. I stand by those statements. Linux lunatics are simply outrageous in their claims against corporations like Microsoft, so they should just submit brokeback. I got an email from a guy, whom I assume was truthful, telling me how he received 300 letters of hate mail from Linux zealots for backing up SCO in a groklaw article. This is just lunacy! When some infantesimally small percentage of loyal users just can't take the rational way out, that tells me to never use the product they support. I simply want to level the playing field, to show that Microsoft and Linux are equal. The executives at Microsoft are good people. Bill donates his personal time and money to stopping worldwide disease. Executives who do this are good people, regardless of whether they turn their offices into WWE wrestling rings, forget to wear antiperspirant, or use death threats when intoxicated. SCO simply is the little guy and should win. Well, it should win because it defends the almighty intellectual property laws. Let's forget any interpretation from some Constitution drafted 230 years ago that IP laws should be for the "progress of arts and sciences." This is 2006, not 1787. If they had computers back then, they would certainly have stood for free market and the protection of that value via software copyrights and patents. The fact that IBM is winning this case so far only goes to show how much they have bribed the courts and are using their influence unfairly. I think both sides have made mistakes, but I'd much rather be controversial to get more site-hits, so I'll only point out the fact that IBM is just a big-bad big-business called big-blue, so they must die and roll over to the freedom fighters at SCO. McBride is a Mormon, and mormons are all good people, so that argument is just outrageous, that he would be unethical. The business machine at IBM is only interested in profit and wishes to milk everyone for everything in order to attain that goal. So, despite the judge remarking on the utter lack of evidence presented by SCO, and the fact that IBM is supporting Linux, which I hate only because I instigated a flame war with Linus Torvalds, which he won, and which I should have not picked at the time. He was 20 and I was much older, but he had made some crack about software patents being mathematical constructs. I just couldn't let him and his Linux fringe lunatics attack me with their inflated rhetoric. So I flamed him. I was right though, because now I get hate mail daily from Linux zealots, so despite the fact that I call Apple a company led by and used by fruits, and despite the fact that I write anti-Linux messages all the time with the premise of being "fair and balanced," I was ultimately right about Linux zealots, so I will be right about SCO. Please excuse me from the office for a few weeks: I am organizing a fund raiser to provide SCO all the legal support they need.

      Rob Enderle

      • Do you have a copy of Maureen O'Gara's story, too? Please, please PLEASE???
        • Wait!!! I've been hit again! Tools, Hacks, and Quacks! Maybe even a rating system where users could select whether the given person is a tool, a hack, or a quack. I hold high esteem for all hackers out there, so keep in mind that you are not "hacks". I think I'm having too much fun with this already ::rubs hands together:: ...mwuhahaha...

        • NOTICE

          Before being called a Troll, I accidentally clicked the "submit" when I meant "preview" and a mal-formed paragraph tag prevented my message from being displayed. I apologize for the inconvenience this causes to /. mods...


          Hehe... Actually, I think I did write some sort of fascecious rant as her some time ago... Thanks for bringing that up: I have been inspired to create a new blog (which I have never been compelled to do ever before). This new blog will be entitle

  • . . . but wouldn't it be great if our buddy RICO made an appearance as a result?
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @08:52AM (#14783676)
    For nearly three years I've been rolling my eyes after reading these comments like: "oh yeah, scox is gonna get their ass handed to them now." Scox will likely lose the case, but that is immaterial. People still continue to adopt Linux at about the same rate, but that is also immaterial.

    Msft is sending a message to those companies who might dare to contribute to Linux. The message is: "if you contribute to Linux, expect to be tied up in court for the next five years. And expect to spend $100M in legal fees, and expect to have some sleezy Utah penny-stock scam company digging through all of records, expect endless and pointless "discovery." Expect depositions, and expect to bashed in the tech-pop-media, and expect other endless hassles." From now on, contributing to Linux is not something that you just casually do. Clearly, this will slow Linux development.

    The entire scam is costing msft less than $100M, hardly more than a few of their idiotic, and ineffective, commercials. Even if IBM sues msft, it will have been worth it for msft. Forget the DoJ, the USA government works for msft.

    The scam is also working out well for scox. Who else would pay darl $1M a year? When darl took over, just before the scam, scox's market cap was under $6M, now it's over $80M.

    So, while the groklaw cheerleaders gloat about scox's great defeats; the execs and msft and scox are laughing up their sleeves.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.