McBride blames IBM and Novell for SCO's fiscal woes
Daeron
Michael S. Mimoso June 10 2004
[...]
McBride put the blame squarely on his rivals for raising doubts in the
minds of potential licensees about the legitimacy of SCO's ownership of
System V Unix. SCO has levied a $5 billion suit against IBM, alleging
that Big Blue illegally contributed Unix code to the Linux kernel. .
[...]
"IBM is trying to slow the case down," McBride said. "It took IBM nine
months to produce AIX code for us. We have been diligently going through
that code and will respond to the court. The pieces are on the table.
It's in the court's hands.
"Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you all will see
documents that will contradict IBM's public posturing," McBride said.
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci969693,00.html
http://snipurl.com/6zo0
- unquote -
From: Darl
To: IBM
Cc: Novell
Subject: Our losing and merit-less case against you
Dear, $Defendant please fall over and die.
Signed .... Darl McBride
Grover Cleveland
> McBride blames IBM, Novell for SCO's fiscal woes
> Michael S. Mimoso June 10 2004
> "IBM is trying to slow the case down," McBride said. "It took IBM nine
> months to produce AIX code for us. We have been diligently going through
> that code and will respond to the court. The pieces are on the table.
> It's in the court's hands.
Once again...I have to point out the hilarity in this situation.
The whole *complaint* on the part of SCO was that they had irrefutable
/proof/ that their code was stolen.
Now, they are delaying because they can't find evidence of the theft and
blame IBM for not making their case for them.
It's like if you accuse me, without evidence, of stealing from your
house...and then, when we get to court, you blame me for not producing the
stolen goods to prove my own guilt.
Linønut
> "IBM is trying to slow the case down," McBride said. "It took IBM nine
> months to produce AIX code for us. We have been diligently going through
> that code and will respond to the court. The pieces are on the table.
> It's in the court's hands.
>
> "Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you all will see
> documents that will contradict IBM's public posturing," McBride said.
Snarlin' Darl's problems began when he had the bright idea that there just had
to be "stolen code" in Linux that he could use to get money.
The documents should, for the most part, be public already.
--
Free as in freedom
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> McBride blames IBM, Novell for SCO's fiscal woes
> Michael S. Mimoso June 10 2004
>
> [...]
>
> McBride put the blame squarely on his rivals for raising doubts in the
> minds of potential licensees about the legitimacy of SCO's ownership of
> System V Unix. SCO has levied a $5 billion suit against IBM, alleging
> that Big Blue illegally contributed Unix code to the Linux kernel. .
SCO owns at most a copyright to one implementation of it. Long before
they (SCO) bought it, AT&T had effectively placed its technology into
the public domain. BSD was challenged in court and won a case on this
point.
The fact that sucessive companies (ending with SCO) have purchased
something that has no value is between them and those that they paid for
it.
> [...]
>
> "IBM is trying to slow the case down," McBride said. "It took IBM nine
> months to produce AIX code for us. We have been diligently going through
> that code and will respond to the court. The pieces are on the table.
> It's in the court's hands.
What ever happened to the court's request that SCO must show the code
where they claim that Linux infringes on their copyright?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you left the stove on.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> What ever happened to the court's request that SCO must show the code
> where they claim that Linux infringes on their copyright?
>
They couldn't find any so they started fishing in AIX.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Daeron wrote:
> McBride put the blame squarely on his rivals for raising doubts in the
> minds of potential licensees about the legitimacy of SCO's ownership
> of System V Unix.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The *only* thing SCO has
been doing this last year is raise doubts in the minds of potential
customers about the legitimacy of the Linux codebase. Not that they've
been very successful, but they keep on trying anyway ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyY7Bd1ZThqotgfgRAo7YAJ40nMwT/9e6NkAs2IHbXjV5Lf3BsQCfStGj
fSUrFgc246j7avNRZzhC4KE=
=fl6/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
-- Andrew Jackson
Hamilcar Barca
-0700), Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> SCO owns at most a copyright to one implementation of it.
Kimball's recent order makes that claim even more unlikely:
[T]he agreements raise substantial doubt as to whether the APA as
amended by Amendment No. 2 qualifies as a Section 204(a) writing.
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION ORDER, SCO v. Novell
Dale A. Kimball, United States District Judge
June 9, 2004
Poor SCOX. If they can't show a "Section 204(a) writing" explicitly
transferring one or more copyrights from Novell to (the original) SCO,
SCOX won't have a single Unix copyright.
> What ever happened to the court's request that SCO must show the code
> where they claim that Linux infringes on their copyright?
SCOX has recently repeated its request to the court that IBM be ordered to
produce every version of AIX and Dynix ever produced. They claim that
otherwise their search for infringing [sic] code is "fruitless".
(Although it directly contradicts their public statements, SCOX' legal
claims against IBM is not about copyright infringement; it's solely a suit
for breach of contract.)
McBride, et al., have told many lies and their frivolous litigation will
soon quash their aspirations completely. Poor SCOX: Soon to be without
customers or product of value.
Rick
(snip)
>
> McBride, et al., have told many lies and their frivolous litigation will
> soon quash their aspirations completely. Poor SCOX: Soon to be without
> customers or product of value.
... but McBride, et al, will have lined their pockets at other's expense
and without punishment.
--
Rick
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
What will happen (similar to what Unix Systems Labs did after losing to
BSD) is that they will request court records to be sealed "to protect
their trade secrets" and then they'll turn around and sell their
interests in 'UNIX' to another group of suck^H^H^H^Hinvestors who think
that they are buying valuable intellectual property.
I'd like to see some legislation that orders the courts to keep all
records open. We (the public) paid for them and once the litigants can't
settle privately and take their fight into 'our' courts, any facts
discovered should be in the public domain.
That will help to discourage the 'son of SCO' from pulling the same
garbage in the future.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point it becomes necessary to behead all the architects and
begin construction. -- Abi-Bar-Shim (Project Mgr. - Great Pyramid)
Benjamin Disraeli
> That will help to discourage the 'son of SCO' from pulling the same
> garbage in the future.
M$ sponsored proxy wars will continue until Microsoft has gone bankrupt.
Say, 2010 or so.
--
w:4
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:52:56 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> >
>> > McBride, et al., have told many lies and their frivolous litigation
>> > will soon quash their aspirations completely. Poor SCOX: Soon to be
>> > without customers or product of value.
>>
>> ... but McBride, et al, will have lined their pockets at other's expense
>> and without punishment.
>
> What will happen (similar to what Unix Systems Labs did after losing to
> BSD) is that they will request court records to be sealed "to protect
> their trade secrets" and then they'll turn around and sell their
> interests in 'UNIX' to another group of suck^H^H^H^Hinvestors who think
> that they are buying valuable intellectual property.
They can request, but IBM, Red Hat and the rest don't have to agree.
>
> I'd like to see some legislation that orders the courts to keep all
> records open. We (the public) paid for them and once the litigants can't
> settle privately and take their fight into 'our' courts, any facts
> discovered should be in the public domain. That will help to discourage
> the 'son of SCO' from pulling the same garbage in the future.
I agree with that.
--
Rick