M$ FUD! M$ FUD! Getcherr fresh M$ FUD while it's still slimy and smelly!
Richard Rasker
form. The flyer is yet another pathetic attempt to give Linux a thrashing
by trotting out the old fairy tales of "legal risk" and "lacking
indemnification" once again, "supported" by referrals to SCO's litigation
catastrophe:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060112132114721
And still some people won't understand why this company is utterly
despised, hated and mistrusted by an increasing number of people and
organizations ...
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
rex.b...@gmail.com
no legitimate grounds for even filing the lawsuit against IBM in the
first place. The judge has been more than flexible, and IBM has even
volunteered to provide information it wasn't otherwise required to
provide, and yet, there is no publicly verifiable justification for the
lawsuit. SCO is claiming that in some classified sealed documents,
that some of the source code from Linux might have been developed in
the same building where some source code from Unix was stored.
Thus far, every public disclosure of these claims has turned out to be
SCO claiming something they didn't own. Furthermore, it was code that
even AT&T didn't own, let alone code, documentation, and specifications
which Novell published without restriction or royalties long before
selling whatever rights were sold to SCO.
Novell has even claimed that SCO was only getting a nonexclusive right
to relicense the UNIX code. In either case, SCO would be obligated to
honor all prior contracts and covenants established by prior owners of
UNIX.
If there are absolutely no grounds for the lawsuit, and/or it can be
proved that SCO had no legitimate claim prior to filing the lawsuit,
then Daryl McBride is personally guilty of fraud, extortion, and
blackmail, not to mention damage to the brand identities of Red Hat,
Novell, IBM, and even Caldera.
There are 18 million shares outstanding, and 51% are held by insiders,
and only about 28,000 shares are traded every day. You would have to
buy all the outstanding shares for 2-3 months to shift the control away
from the insiders. This still wouldn't be enough to wrest control away
from Microsoft shell holding companies like Bay Star.
The irony is that from 1987 to 2003, SCO was held by a carefully
balanced group of Microsoft rivals, including Novell, Ray Noorda, HP,
DEC, and IBM. When McBride took control of Caldera he managed to get
the Tarantella company who owned the rights to UNIX to sell him those
rights. Keep in mind that Caldera only bought the service
organization, NOT the rights to UNIX. Unfortunately, the loss of
service revenue, combined with the diluted holdings of Caldera, made
Caldera an easy take-over, and put the SCO corporation on the edge of
bankruptcy.
So not only is Daryl McBride and his management team guilty of fraud,
extortion, blackmail and obstructon of justice, but they are also
guilty of securities fraud as well.
SCOX has turned into a huge "pump and dump" scheme funded in no small
part by Microsoft executives, employees, and holding companies.
OF COURSE Microsoft is going to try and publish it's FUD.
The irony is that the more we examine the facts in the case, the more
we see that it is Linux which has the most easily verified pedigree and
these proprietary companies who have been running on shakey legal
ground - often appropriating the intellectual properties of others in
direct violation of their licenses (SCO's use of Linux source code).
billwg
"Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.23....@linetec.nl...
> Several English IT magazines feature an M$ flyer with FUD in its
> purest
> form. The flyer is yet another pathetic attempt to give Linux a
> thrashing
> by trotting out the old fairy tales of "legal risk" and "lacking
> indemnification" once again, "supported" by referrals to SCO's
> litigation
> catastrophe:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060112132114721
>
> And still some people won't understand why this company is utterly
> despised, hated and mistrusted by an increasing number of people and
> organizations ...
>
> Richard Rasker
>
saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of court
and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the case
remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a laugher,
it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
chrisv
>For such a laugher, it seems to have remarkable staying power!
Just like you, billwg! LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of court
> and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the case
> remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a laugher,
> it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
Say, I remember asking you why SCO hasn't presented... what was it the
judge said... oh, yeah, "any competent evidence". My theory is that they
don't have any evidence. What's your theory?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/29adb484b5ac1ca3
Really, I'm very curious... pretty please, could you let me know?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Anything a .460 Weatherby Express can't deal with is probably
best addressed by a shaped-charge round anyway." - Crash
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndtae8d....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2006-01-23, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
>> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of
>> court
>> and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the
>> case
>> remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a
>> laugher,
>> it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
>
> Say, I remember asking you why SCO hasn't presented... what was it the
> judge said... oh, yeah, "any competent evidence". My theory is that
> they
> don't have any evidence. What's your theory?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/29adb484b5ac1ca3
>
> Really, I'm very curious... pretty please, could you let me know?
>
to the court in the IBM case, but it may just have been an offer of
proof. I looked around for the articles, but they are kind of vague on
just where the document is being held. What I find most amusing is that
the defense of the position is that the lines were not copied from SCO
or System V, but were copied from BSD. No one here seems to share my
amusement, though.
I don't think that SCO has much of a case either, but then I don't think
that the GPL is much of a license or that source copyrights offer much
protection.
Richard Rasker
>
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.23....@linetec.nl...
>> Several English IT magazines feature an M$ flyer with FUD in its
>> purest
>> form. The flyer is yet another pathetic attempt to give Linux a
>> thrashing
>> by trotting out the old fairy tales of "legal risk" and "lacking
>> indemnification" once again, "supported" by referrals to SCO's
>> litigation
>> catastrophe:
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060112132114721
>>
>> And still some people won't understand why this company is utterly
>> despised, hated and mistrusted by an increasing number of people and
>> organizations ...
> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of court
> and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the case
> remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a laugher,
> it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
Well, it's not just "us COLA folk" telling that SCO's case is without
merit. It's the professional opinion of most everyone who even remotely
follows the whole sharade. And, of course, the judge has personally
expressed his dismay at "the astonishing lack of evidence" for SCO's
claims so far. The "staying power" has nothing to do with the merits of
the case, but everything with SCO's strategy, aimed at stretching out the
whole affair over as long a period as possible. Also, any evidence dug up
in discovery was due for filing only one month ago -- which (as expected)
was done under seal, so we'll have to wait perhaps more than a year to
hear whatever SCO thinks is "evidence", but most probably will turn out to
be fairy poo in the end.
This, however, doesn't stop the largest bully in the world from trying to
scare businesses with these allegations. And oh yeah, M$ most likely was
also responsible for dragging Peter Quinn's (MA - ODF proponent) name
through the mud, by inciting The Boston Globe to insinuate that there was
something fishy with Quinn's travel expenses:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060123132416703
M$ fully deserves every bit of contempt they get.
Ray Ingles
>> Say, I remember asking you why SCO hasn't presented... what was it the
>> judge said... oh, yeah, "any competent evidence". My theory is that
>> they don't have any evidence. What's your theory?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/29adb484b5ac1ca3
>>
>> Really, I'm very curious... pretty please, could you let me know?
>>
> I was under the impression that they had submitted all that under seal
> to the court in the IBM case, but it may just have been an offer of
> proof.
Oh, you Artful Dodger, you! Impressive! If I leave the slightest gap,
you slither through, pretending to misunderstand!
Let me make my question utterly pellucid. The judge in the SCO case has
gone on record as stating that SCO has not presented any evidence,
either publicly or under seal, that Linux has any copyright violations
whatsoever. This is a fact, a given.
Now, my question to you is, "Why hasn't SCO presented any competent
evidence *to the judge* in their own trial?" Again, my theory is that
they don't have any evidence. Do you have another proposal?
> I don't think that SCO has much of a case either, but then I don't think
> that the GPL is much of a license or that source copyrights offer much
> protection.
Then you're even more mendacious for wondering why it's still in the
courts. The wheels of justice turn slowly, that's all.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Bush is complaining about a lack of intelligence, which seems
sort of redundant." - Robin Williams
Rick
Well, LOL!!! they LOL!!! are LOL!!! still LOL!!! in discovery
LOL!!!LOL!!!. Once LOL!!! discovery LOL!!! is over LOL!!!LOL!!!, it LOL!!!
may LOL!!! well LOL!!! be LOL!!! dismissed LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!.
--
Rick
7
Spoken like a true bum boy on behalf of micoshaft.
30 pieces of silver is in the post.
7
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndtae8d....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2006-01-23, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
>>> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of
>>> court
>>> and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the
>>> case
>>> remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a
>>> laugher,
>>> it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
>>
>> Say, I remember asking you why SCO hasn't presented... what was it the
>> judge said... oh, yeah, "any competent evidence". My theory is that
>> they
>> don't have any evidence. What's your theory?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy
msg/29adb484b5ac1ca3
>>
>> Really, I'm very curious... pretty please, could you let me know?
>>
> I was under the impression that they had submitted all that under seal
> to the court in the IBM case, but it may just have been an offer of
> proof. I looked around for the articles, but they are kind of vague on
> just where the document is being held. What I find most amusing is that
> the defense of the position is that the lines were not copied from SCO
> or System V, but were copied from BSD. No one here seems to share my
> amusement, though.
Spoken like a true bum boy on behalf of micoshaft.
Its even more amusing to see you astroturfing to
lay foundations for copying when copying doesn't exist.
> I don't think that SCO has much of a case either, but then I don't think
> that the GPL is much of a license or that source copyrights offer much
> protection.
Thats amusing coming from a bum boy speaking on behalf
of micoshaft lawers. Is this how the lawyers get their fat
checks? By pulling wool over client's eyes about the power
of GPL? GPL has got to be one of the greatest licenses ever.
Not many cases have ever gone to court because of its power to
persuade detractors to comply, of those that did go all the way to
court, justice was meated out swifly.
7
> Several English IT magazines feature an M$ flyer with FUD in its purest
> form. The flyer is yet another pathetic attempt to give Linux a thrashing
> by trotting out the old fairy tales of "legal risk" and "lacking
> indemnification" once again, "supported" by referrals to SCO's litigation
> catastrophe:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060112132114721
>
> And still some people won't understand why this company is utterly
> despised, hated and mistrusted by an increasing number of people and
> organizations ...
>
> Richard Rasker
Micoshaft has not the powers of persuation or the clarity
to see indemnification process turning full circle and
biting their ass off.
Its not possible for micoshaft the company to talk about
indemnification without indemnifying users against monopoly
abuse convictions and thus new regulations and rules coming into effect,
or by constantly refusing to accepting product
liability for each and every issue
created by release of new software, because each of those are
of more immediate concern to companies with daily incidents.
IP indeminification is a distant issue compared to indemnities
for product failure, and monopoly abuse convictions.
By micoshaft raising issues of indeminification,
it leaves management the opportunity to question again micoshaft
executives and sales reps when they will offer product failure indemnity
and those expenses that arise out of monopoly abuse convictions
forcing changes to software and/or business practices.
Linønut
Ohmigawd! Rick is hysterical!!!!
--
Wean yourself from the Microsoft teat!
Linønut
> Micoshaft has not the powers of persuation or the clarity
> to see indemnification process turning full circle and
> biting their ass off.
>
> Its not possible for micoshaft the company to talk about
> indemnification without indemnifying users against monopoly
> abuse convictions and thus new regulations and rules coming into effect,
> or by constantly refusing to accepting product
> liability for each and every issue
> created by release of new software, because each of those are
> of more immediate concern to companies with daily incidents.
> IP indeminification is a distant issue compared to indemnities
> for product failure, and monopoly abuse convictions.
>
> By micoshaft raising issues of indeminification,
> it leaves management the opportunity to question again micoshaft
> executives and sales reps when they will offer product failure indemnity
> and those expenses that arise out of monopoly abuse convictions
> forcing changes to software and/or business practices.
7, normally you're a wild man, but you've hit the nail on the head here.
The next time a Microsoft salesman brings up indemnification, I'd simply
ask him what Microsoft's policy is on losses due to down time,
self-borking configurations, virus/trojan/worm/hijack/phishing
manifestations, chronic server/client disconnections and reboots, data
corruption, frozen Microsoft applications (supposedly being fixed in
Vista), unwarranted BSA audits, and hardware that turns out to be
underpowered for the operating system and a few apps.
That won't shut him/her up (after all, Microsoft people are trained
under fire to twist words, backtrack, move the goal posts, make
insinuations, browbeat, shout, declaim, deny all culpability, insult,
denigrate, weasel out, and if all that fails, leave their card, but at least
they'll feel a bit of heat for a change.
B Gruff
> Several English IT magazines feature an M$ flyer with FUD in its purest
> form.
For "English" we should read UK in this case, presumably.
However, of more interest to me at the moment is "Why the *UK* in
particular"? Nobody seems to have touched on it yet.
William Poaster
weary, came a tapping at my door when Linønutlinønut posted this, &
nothing more...
He's doing an impersonation of the billwg - Bill Weisgerber troll....or
maybe a barcode...
--
The majority of wintrolls DO know the
difference between their ass & their elbows,
because they cannot talk out of their elbows.
Peter
>
> That won't shut him/her up (after all, Microsoft people are trained
> under fire to twist words, backtrack, move the goal posts, make
> insinuations, browbeat, shout, declaim, deny all culpability, insult,
> denigrate, weasel out, and if all that fails, leave their card, but at
> least they'll feel a bit of heat for a change.
>
So presumably they are trained not to throw chairs.
Then presumably another salesman invites the CEO out to some swanky country
club and he comes back and orders a switch to Windows.
Peter
> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of court
> and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the case
> remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a laugher,
> it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
The judge has effectively invited IBM to re-file for some partial summary
judgements once discovery has finished. He definitely did not tell IBM
they would be wasting their time re-filing them. The judge turned them
down previously in case any evidence came to light during further discovery
that would allow the case to go to trial.
The only things that would possibly go to trial are some SCO - IBM
contractural matters which are of no concern to anyone else.
DFS
> Well, it's not just "us COLA folk" telling that SCO's case is without
> merit. It's the professional opinion of most everyone who even remotely
> follows the whole sharade. And, of course, the judge has personally
> expressed his dismay at "the astonishing lack of evidence" for SCO's
> claims so far. The "staying power" has nothing to do with the merits of
> the case, but everything with SCO's strategy, aimed at stretching out the
> whole affair over as long a period as possible. Also, any evidence dug up
> in discovery was due for filing only one month ago -- which (as expected)
> was done under seal, so we'll have to wait perhaps more than a year to
> hear whatever SCO thinks is "evidence", but most probably will turn out to
> be fairy poo in the end.
I agree with you here...
> This, however, doesn't stop the largest bully in the world from trying to
> scare businesses with these allegations.
...but here I don't. Do you have any evidence
whatsoever that MS is financing SCO's continued
pursuit of Linux?
> And oh yeah, M$ most likely was
> also responsible for dragging Peter Quinn's (MA - ODF proponent) name
> through the mud, by inciting The Boston Globe to insinuate that there was
> something fishy with Quinn's travel expenses:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060123132416703
"most likely"? Based on what? You have no
evidence MS was involved. Quinn himself has no
evidence MS was involved.
You (and Quinn) would have us believe various
Senators, the head of Mass. Administration and
Finance, the Boston Globe reporter and his
manager, and the managing editor of the newspaper,
were all influenced or paid by MS.
Absurd. It's the same childish nonsense spewed by
Rex Ballard.
So why did the Globe investigate Quinn? Because
every big-city newspaper is constantly targeting
one or more politicians or government employees,
trying to find issues with travel expenses and
authorizations. It's easy to investigate, and
resonates with a widespread public distrust of
government.
It's how newspapers sell themselves - they reveal
government inefficiency or waste of tax money.
> M$ fully deserves every bit of contempt they get.
MS may deserve contempt, for this or other
matters, but certainly not any based on your
paranoid, unsupportable assumptions.
And what's just as pathetic is, if you follow
various links starting from the groklaw link you
provided, you'll see the same baseless accusations
against MS spat over and over again, always from
Linux and open source advocates. It's always
"rumors" and "he heard" and "my opinion" and
"attributed to MS".
When you have any evidence, come back to the
party. Until then, kindly STFU.
> Richard Rasker
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> ... so we'll have to wait perhaps more than a year to
>> hear whatever SCO thinks is "evidence", but most probably will turn out to
>> be fairy poo in the end.
>
> I agree with you here...
>
>
>> This, however, doesn't stop the largest bully in the world from trying to
>> scare businesses with these allegations.
>
> ...but here I don't. Do you have any evidence
> whatsoever that MS is financing SCO's continued
> pursuit of Linux?
?? It's not about any financing. It's about M$ supporting their FUD about
"legal risks" and "indemnification" with the SCO saga - without mentioning
the near-certain fact that the SCO case is totally without merit, and the
absolute certain fact that it has no relevance for Linux users whatsoever.
In other words: they try to scare businesses away from Linux by pointing
at SCO vs. IBM, and suggesting something along the line of "That could be
*your ass* being sued, because *you* chose to use Linux".
That's bullying, fearmongering and fact-twisting if ever I saw it -
in short: utter FUD.
>> And oh yeah, M$ most likely was
>> also responsible for dragging Peter Quinn's (MA - ODF proponent) name
>> through the mud, by inciting The Boston Globe to insinuate that there was
>> something fishy with Quinn's travel expenses:
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060123132416703
>
> "most likely"? Based on what? You have no
> evidence MS was involved. Quinn himself has no
> evidence MS was involved.
>
> You (and Quinn) would have us believe various
> Senators, the head of Mass. Administration and
> Finance, the Boston Globe reporter and his
> manager, and the managing editor of the newspaper,
> were all influenced or paid by MS.
Paid? I hope not. Infuenced? Probably.
> Absurd. It's the same childish nonsense spewed by
> Rex Ballard.
>
> So why did the Globe investigate Quinn? Because
> every big-city newspaper is constantly targeting
> one or more politicians or government employees,
> trying to find issues with travel expenses and
> authorizations. It's easy to investigate, and
> resonates with a widespread public distrust of
> government.
>
> It's how newspapers sell themselves - they reveal
> government inefficiency or waste of tax money.
Funny then, how this travel expense investigation was publicized as a hot
item though it didn't turn up any wrongdoings - even on the contrary: it
showed that on several occasions, mr. Quinn paid out of his own pocket for
business trips - trips he even made in his own free time. This was not an
investigation into some crooked politician, but a deliberate attempt to
smear one of the apparently few politicians who know the true meaning of
words such as integrity and good work ethics. Also, the timing was very
convenient for his political opponents.
But OK, without any tangible evidence, I can't say whether there's more
to this than an evil newspaper editor publishing the opposite of what his
research indicated.
>> M$ fully deserves every bit of contempt they get.
>
> MS may deserve contempt, for this or other
> matters, but certainly not any based on your
> paranoid, unsupportable assumptions.
The FUD is an indisputable fact; Quinn's case is indeed an assumption -
but not a paranoid one. M$ is no stranger to worse tricks, trying to bring
down its enemies.
chrisv
It's kinda like a Mafia, but without the hired goons.
chrisv
> Several English IT magazines feature an M$ flyer with FUD in its purest
> form. The flyer is yet another pathetic attempt to give Linux a thrashing
> by trotting out the old fairy tales of "legal risk" and "lacking
> indemnification" once again, "supported" by referrals to SCO's litigation
> catastrophe:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060112132114721
>
> And still some people won't understand why this company is utterly
> despised, hated and mistrusted by an increasing number of people and
> organizations ...
Yep. This kind kind of scummy behavior should be illegal. Too bad that
it would be impossible to write the law. M$ takes advantage of weakness
in the law whenever they can, of course. Pure evil.
chrisv
> Once upon a Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:04:54 -0600 dreary, as I laboured tired &
> weary, came a tapping at my door when Linųnutlinųnut posted this, &
> nothing more...
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Rick belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:37:20 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
>>>> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of
>>>> court and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and
>>>> the case remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a
>>>> laugher, it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
>>>
>>> Well, LOL!!! they LOL!!! are LOL!!! still LOL!!! in discovery
>>> LOL!!!LOL!!!. Once LOL!!! discovery LOL!!! is over LOL!!!LOL!!!, it
>>> LOL!!! may LOL!!! well LOL!!! be LOL!!! dismissed LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!.
>>
>> Ohmigawd! Rick is hysterical!!!!
>
> He's doing an impersonation of the billwg - Bill Weisgerber troll....or
> maybe a barcode...
To really impersonate the billwg slimeball, you'd first have to
roll-around in a raw-sewage-filled gutter.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
chrisv wrote:
>> Then presumably another salesman invites the CEO out to some swanky
>> country club and he comes back and orders a switch to Windows.
>
> It's kinda like a Mafia, but without the hired goons.
Eh? Then what do you call the BSA? :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1YGPd1ZThqotgfgRAjD7AJ9uiFn9UqkCsF6sZDOT7gfHNS65JgCdEgfT
Pubk35o9k8dtMqvofZmDgUY=
=cfjf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Normal times may possibly be over forever.
Rick
> Once upon a Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:04:54 -0600 dreary, as I laboured tired &
> weary, came a tapping at my door when Linųnutlinųnut posted this, &
> nothing more...
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Rick belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:37:20 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, rich, you COLA folk tell each other that tale over and again,
>>>> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of
>>>> court and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and
>>>> the case remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such
>>>> a laugher, it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
>>>
>>> Well, LOL!!! they LOL!!! are LOL!!! still LOL!!! in discovery
>>> LOL!!!LOL!!!. Once LOL!!! discovery LOL!!! is over LOL!!!LOL!!!, it
>>> LOL!!! may LOL!!! well LOL!!! be LOL!!! dismissed LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!.
>>
>> Ohmigawd! Rick is hysterical!!!!
>
> He's doing an impersonation of the billwg - Bill Weisgerber troll....or
> maybe a barcode...
... no barcode ... :-)
--
Rick
Rick
... uh, hmmmm... well, I'm not going to do that, so the above lines will
have to suffice.
--
Rick
Aragorn
spoke the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> I can't help but wonder what will happen if it turns out that SCO has
> no legitimate grounds for even filing the lawsuit against IBM in the
> first place. [...]
Oh, I don't have to wonder about that, Rex. Here's how it will be...:
(1) SCO is on the verge of bankruptcy. Everybody knows that. It is
through idiotic lawsuits like this one - whom *haven't* they sued yet?
- that they can still stretch it a little, aided by Microsoft funding.
Yet, as *we* all already know, they _have_ no foot to stand on, and
they're standing on the edge of the abyss. Only a matter of time
before they will take the fall and meet the bottom.
They might try and sue someone else after this, but I think that's very
unlikely since they are now at the core of what it was all about: going
after GNU/Linux. So either way, they're already dead. They just
haven't been buried yet.
(2) As for Microsoft's flagrant use of lies about copyright
infringements in the Linux kernel which are based upon SCO's lawsuit
against IBM: once SCO will be gone, those allegations will be gone as
well, and nobody at Microsoft will have any recollection of them ever
having existed anywhere on the Microsoft website or in any printed
publication by Microsoft.
"Never happened, don't know what you're talking about." And sadly
enough, the public will once again forget Microsoft ever even *made*
those claims, or how they invested in SCO and supported its ridiculous
lawsuit against IBM.
They are Microsoft. They can get away with anything... :-/
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Let me make my question utterly pellucid. The judge in the SCO case
> has
> gone on record as stating that SCO has not presented any evidence,
> either publicly or under seal, that Linux has any copyright violations
> whatsoever. This is a fact, a given.
>
statement?
> Now, my question to you is, "Why hasn't SCO presented any competent
> evidence *to the judge* in their own trial?" Again, my theory is that
> they don't have any evidence. Do you have another proposal?
>
They don't have to present it until they want to use it as a counter to
the IBM counter claim would be my guess. The summary judgement has not
occurred and SCO has made the claim that the copyright violations exist.
To provide a summary judgement, the judge has to assume that the SCO
claims are true and that, even with that assumption, the summary
judgement can be made. He can't do that, IMO. I am sure they have
released everything that IBM asked for and that would presumably be the
code analysis.
>> I don't think that SCO has much of a case either, but then I don't
>> think
>> that the GPL is much of a license or that source copyrights offer
>> much
>> protection.
>
> Then you're even more mendacious for wondering why it's still in the
> courts. The wheels of justice turn slowly, that's all.
>
I think that the judge will allow the trial to commence and IBM will
settle ASAP. The major case is on the issue of whether or not IBM
violated their System V agreement by disclosing information regarding
derivative products, which was prohibited by the contract that they made
with AT&T, the ownership of which eventually transferred to SCO.
billwg
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:SYcBf.6741$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Spoken like a true bum boy on behalf of micoshaft.
> Its even more amusing to see you astroturfing to
> lay foundations for copying when copying doesn't exist.
>
Hah! You are unworthy to tie his shoes.
>
>> I don't think that SCO has much of a case either, but then I don't
>> think
>> that the GPL is much of a license or that source copyrights offer
>> much
>> protection.
>
> Thats amusing coming from a bum boy speaking on behalf
> of micoshaft lawers. Is this how the lawyers get their fat
> checks? By pulling wool over client's eyes about the power
> of GPL? GPL has got to be one of the greatest licenses ever.
> Not many cases have ever gone to court because of its power to
> persuade detractors to comply, of those that did go all the way to
> court, justice was meated out swifly.
>
except favorable terms offered to alleged violators.
chrisv
>chrisv wrote:
>
>>> Then presumably another salesman invites the CEO out to some swanky
>>> country club and he comes back and orders a switch to Windows.
>>
>> It's kinda like a Mafia, but without the hired goons.
>
>Eh? Then what do you call the BSA? :-)
Have you seen their recent ads encouraging people to rat-out their own
company? Nice.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
chrisv wrote:
>>> It's kinda like a Mafia, but without the hired goons.
>>
>> Eh? Then what do you call the BSA? :-)
>
> Have you seen their recent ads encouraging people to rat-out their own
> company? Nice.
Whenever I see something like that, I'm reminded of a poster seen in a
Red Dwarf episode: "Betray your family and friends, fabulous prizes to
be won".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD1j72d1ZThqotgfgRAvRrAJ4tGAD1HO8QnUM0oom4ht+FT/aqMwCeIuZv
MPRGcdubE+qBpePetNiC1uk=
=XHfk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
My other computer is your XP box.
chrisv
>I think (snip claptrap)
Does anyone care what a LOL!!! troll and proven liar says he thinks?
Ray Ingles
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndtagfa....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Let me make my question utterly pellucid. The judge in the SCO case
>> has gone on record as stating that SCO has not presented any evidence,
>> either publicly or under seal, that Linux has any copyright violations
>> whatsoever. This is a fact, a given.
>>
> I don't think he said that in that way, ray. Can you cite the
> statement?
Sure, I quoted the judge to this one guy, "billwg", several times:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9c753888b70c6a5a
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/91cb85d866d1acb7
And, one more time, here you go:
"Despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its
actual evidence--or complete lack thereof--and the resulting temptation
to grant IBM's motion, the court has determined that it would be
premature to grant summary judgment," Kimball wrote Wednesday. "Viewed
against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning
IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix
software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent
evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed
SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."
Now, why wouldn't "complete lack thereof" apply to evidence under seal,
too? I look forward to your spin on this...
>> Now, my question to you is, "Why hasn't SCO presented any competent
>> evidence *to the judge* in their own trial?" Again, my theory is that
>> they don't have any evidence. Do you have another proposal?
>>
> They don't have to present it until they want to use it as a counter to
> the IBM counter claim would be my guess.
But discovery is over. It completed December 22nd, 2005.
> To provide a summary judgement, the judge has to assume that the SCO
> claims are true and that, even with that assumption, the summary
> judgement can be made.
No, that's not the way the law works. SCO has to at least produce some
evidence that there is a 'disputed fact' that would have to be
adjudicated at trial. SCO has not done so, and the judge basically gave
them until the end of discovery to do so. He denied IBM's request
without prejudice, meaning they are free to refile after discovery
completes. Which it has.
Courts move terribly slowly much of the time, so I figure it'll be at
least a few weeks before that refiling comes. But I predict it'll come,
and IBM will win.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050209141549246
Now, given that - if SCO has evidence supporting their case, prithee
couldst thou explain why SCO hath not presented it to the judge?
> I think that the judge will allow the trial to commence and IBM will
> settle ASAP.
Sure, Bill. Whatever helps you sleep at night. It'll be fun quoting
that back to you someday.
> The major case is on the issue of whether or not IBM
> violated their System V agreement by disclosing information regarding
> derivative products, which was prohibited by the contract that they made
> with AT&T, the ownership of which eventually transferred to SCO.
Oh, that? No, that avenue is totally wrecked. AT&T specifically,
publicly stated that the contract did not apply to 'derivative
products'.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040318012131886
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20041018201803821
"Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees
that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed --
only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Sure, it's OK for Ashcroft to interrogate everyone who's ever
glanced toward Mecca - *his* profiling was A-okay. In fact, if
you whined about it and brought up civil rights you were just
'aiding the terrorists'. But at the airports, where we face the
most obvious and imminent danger, we have become dangerously and
inexplicably committed to placing pretense over results."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> To provide a summary judgement, the judge has to assume that the SCO
>> claims are true and that, even with that assumption, the summary
>> judgement can be made.
>
> No, that's not the way the law works. SCO has to at least produce some
> evidence that there is a 'disputed fact' that would have to be
> adjudicated at trial. SCO has not done so, and the judge basically
> gave
> them until the end of discovery to do so. He denied IBM's request
> without prejudice, meaning they are free to refile after discovery
> completes. Which it has.
>
> Courts move terribly slowly much of the time, so I figure it'll be at
> least a few weeks before that refiling comes. But I predict it'll
> come,
> and IBM will win.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050209141549246
>
> Now, given that - if SCO has evidence supporting their case, prithee
> couldst thou explain why SCO hath not presented it to the judge?
>
Perhaps it is not part of the case. Consider the item: "But when SCO
filed its main claim, it argued merely that IBM infringed only by
continuing to ship a version of Unix, called AIX, after SCO said it had
revoked IBM's license to do so. "
Does that make the IBM counterclaim immaterial and so not pertinent to
the case? From the article, SCO backed off the claim, i.e. that linux
copying of System V coded was indicative of IBM's failure to comply with
the original contract, over a year ago.
>> I think that the judge will allow the trial to commence and IBM will
>> settle ASAP.
>
> Sure, Bill. Whatever helps you sleep at night. It'll be fun quoting
> that back to you someday.
>
>> The major case is on the issue of whether or not IBM
>> violated their System V agreement by disclosing information regarding
>> derivative products, which was prohibited by the contract that they
>> made
>> with AT&T, the ownership of which eventually transferred to SCO.
>
> Oh, that? No, that avenue is totally wrecked. AT&T specifically,
> publicly stated that the contract did not apply to 'derivative
> products'.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040318012131886
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20041018201803821
>
> "Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees
> that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they
> developed --
> only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."
>
How does any of that bear on the requirement to avoid disclosure via
''Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT
and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided
that any such modification or derivative work that contains any part of
a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement is treated hereunder the
same as such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. "
Ray Ingles
>> But discovery is over. It completed December 22nd, 2005.
>>
> Has IBM re-filed its motion?
Gee, did you read what I wrote just after this?
>> Courts move terribly slowly much of the time, so I figure it'll be at
>> least a few weeks before that refiling comes. But I predict it'll
>> come, and IBM will win.
>> Now, given that - if SCO has evidence supporting their case, prithee
>> couldst thou explain why SCO hath not presented it to the judge?
>>
> Perhaps it is not part of the case. Consider the item: "But when SCO
> filed its main claim, it argued merely that IBM infringed only by
> continuing to ship a version of Unix, called AIX, after SCO said it had
> revoked IBM's license to do so. "
Ah, but you've been implying that SCO has some kind of actual case
involving IP, e.g. here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/da8800a3b6cec825
The judge is noting that SCO hasn't presented any evidence whatsoever
to back that up. Zip. Nothing. You're just spouting FUD.
> Does that make the IBM counterclaim immaterial and so not pertinent to
> the case? From the article, SCO backed off the claim, i.e. that linux
> copying of System V coded was indicative of IBM's failure to comply with
> the original contract, over a year ago.
They are now only claiming contract violations (see below) and IBM
distributing AIX (not Linux, AIX) after SCO allegedly 'terminated' their
license. (Given the case vs. Novell, it's doubtful they'd even have the
right to do so, even *if* their contract case held any water.)
>> Oh, that? No, that avenue is totally wrecked. AT&T specifically,
>> publicly stated that the contract did not apply to 'derivative
>> products'.
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040318012131886
>> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20041018201803821
>>
>> "Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees
>> that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they
>> developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."
>>
> How does any of that bear on the requirement to avoid disclosure via
> ''Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT
> and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided
> that any such modification or derivative work that contains any part of
> a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement is treated hereunder the
> same as such SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
You're just pathetic. You didn't even read the links. As I just said,
AT&T specifically clarified this very section of the license (in 1985!)
and explicitly and publicly denied any claims to code authored solely by
the customer. Not just in their newsletter to Unix customers (twice),
but an AT&T exec has testified in a deposition under oath that he
specifically told customers (including specifically Sequent, author of
Dynix, source of RCU) that the clause didn't mean what you are
pretending it means.
BTW, it was IBM who asked AT&T to clarify this issue back in 1985.
The judge is giving SCO every possible bit of rope he can, to avoid any
chance of being reversed on appeal. This makes the preliminary case take
longer, but drastically limits the post-trial circus. Under the
circumstances, a prudent choice.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
- Anonymous
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-01-24, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> But discovery is over. It completed December 22nd, 2005.
>>>
>> Has IBM re-filed its motion?
>
> Gee, did you read what I wrote just after this?
>
been 30 days since 12/22.
>>> Courts move terribly slowly much of the time, so I figure it'll be
>>> at
>>> least a few weeks before that refiling comes. But I predict it'll
>>> come, and IBM will win.
>
>>> Now, given that - if SCO has evidence supporting their case, prithee
>>> couldst thou explain why SCO hath not presented it to the judge?
>>>
>> Perhaps it is not part of the case. Consider the item: "But when
>> SCO
>> filed its main claim, it argued merely that IBM infringed only by
>> continuing to ship a version of Unix, called AIX, after SCO said it
>> had
>> revoked IBM's license to do so. "
>
> Ah, but you've been implying that SCO has some kind of actual case
> involving IP, e.g. here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/da8800a3b6cec825
>
> The judge is noting that SCO hasn't presented any evidence whatsoever
> to back that up. Zip. Nothing. You're just spouting FUD.
>
I don't believe that you are being accurate here, ray. The linux code
from system V issue is part of an IBM effort to thwart the SCO case by
defusing the anticipated notion that the presence of system V code in
linux shows that IBM was derelict. But the theory of the case presented
in the past by SCO did not go down that road, choosing some alternate as
cited.
>> Does that make the IBM counterclaim immaterial and so not pertinent
>> to
>> the case? From the article, SCO backed off the claim, i.e. that
>> linux
>> copying of System V coded was indicative of IBM's failure to comply
>> with
>> the original contract, over a year ago.
>
> They are now only claiming contract violations (see below) and IBM
> distributing AIX (not Linux, AIX) after SCO allegedly 'terminated'
> their
> license. (Given the case vs. Novell, it's doubtful they'd even have
> the
> right to do so, even *if* their contract case held any water.)
>
I don't believe that SCO ever claimed anything more than contract
violations.
It seems to me that you are not reading the word that are printed there,
ray. The agreement and clarification as to ATT not "owning" any rights
to the derived work do not explicitly say that the prohibition against
disclosure of the original is relieved in any way. It seems to me that
they are talking about two entirely different concepts. Certainly the
derived work is going to contain the essence of the work that it is
derived from and prohibiting disclosure of the latter is the same as
prohibiting disclosure of the former. I remember some discussion about
IBM recognizing that obligation still in regard to their requiring
anyone looking at AIX code to sign an NDA relative to the System V
requirement.
billwg
"Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.23....@linetec.nl...
> Op Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:37:20 +0000, schreef billwg:
>
>>
>> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.01.23....@linetec.nl...
>>> Several English IT magazines feature an M$ flyer with FUD in its
>>> purest
>>> form. The flyer is yet another pathetic attempt to give Linux a
>>> thrashing
>>> by trotting out the old fairy tales of "legal risk" and "lacking
>>> indemnification" once again, "supported" by referrals to SCO's
>>> litigation
>>> catastrophe:
>>>
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060112132114721
>>>
>>> And still some people won't understand why this company is utterly
>>> despised, hated and mistrusted by an increasing number of people and
>>> organizations ...
>
>> saying that the SCO case is so weak that it will be laughed out of
>> court
>> and summarily judged, but that has been said for years now and the
>> case
>> remains in court, awaiting a jury trial next year. For such a
>> laugher,
>> it seems to have remarkable staying power! LOL!!!
>
> merit. It's the professional opinion of most everyone who even
> remotely
> follows the whole sharade. And, of course, the judge has personally
> expressed his dismay at "the astonishing lack of evidence" for SCO's
> claims so far. The "staying power" has nothing to do with the merits
> of
> the case, but everything with SCO's strategy, aimed at stretching out
> the
> whole affair over as long a period as possible. Also, any evidence dug
> up
> in discovery was due for filing only one month ago -- which (as
> expected)
> hear whatever SCO thinks is "evidence", but most probably will turn
> out to
> be fairy poo in the end.
>
agenda and the fat lady has not begun to sing.
> This, however, doesn't stop the largest bully in the world from trying
> to
> scare businesses with these allegations. And oh yeah, M$ most likely
> was
> also responsible for dragging Peter Quinn's (MA - ODF proponent) name
> through the mud, by inciting The Boston Globe to insinuate that there
> was
> something fishy with Quinn's travel expenses:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060123132416703
>
> M$ fully deserves every bit of contempt they get.
>
You are a paranoid, rich!
billwg
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.23....@nomail.com...
>
> Well, LOL!!! they LOL!!! are LOL!!! still LOL!!! in discovery
> LOL!!!LOL!!!. Once LOL!!! discovery LOL!!! is over LOL!!!LOL!!!, it
> LOL!!!
> may LOL!!! well LOL!!! be LOL!!! dismissed LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!.
>
you heard any good motions lately? LOL!!!
Ray Ingles
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndtcrtk....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2006-01-24, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> But discovery is over. It completed December 22nd, 2005.
>>>>
>>> Has IBM re-filed its motion?
>>
>> Gee, did you read what I wrote just after this?
>>
> Yes. It indicates that you do not know. How long do they have? It's
> been 30 days since 12/22.
SCO filed suit March 2003, and IBM filed the first motion for summary
judgement May 2004. The decision to deny without prejudice wasn't handed
down until February of 2005. A month is nothing in this sort of thing.
But you knew that... heck, I informed you of that right here:
"Courts move terribly slowly much of the time, so I figure it'll be
at least a few weeks before that refiling comes. But I predict it'll
come, and IBM will win."
I'd be surprised if it took more than six months for that motion to be
filed, but not *too* surprised.
>> Ah, but you've been implying that SCO has some kind of actual case
>> involving IP, e.g. here:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/da8800a3b6cec825
>>
>> The judge is noting that SCO hasn't presented any evidence whatsoever
>> to back that up. Zip. Nothing. You're just spouting FUD.
>>
> I don't believe that you are being accurate here, ray. The linux code
> from system V issue is part of an IBM effort to thwart the SCO case by
> defusing the anticipated notion that the presence of system V code in
> linux shows that IBM was derelict.
Um, no. SCO's the one that brought it up. Heck, they used it as their
*examples* of stolen code, remember? But then they backed it out of
their amended claims...
>> They are now only claiming contract violations (see below) and IBM
>> distributing AIX (not Linux, AIX) after SCO allegedly 'terminated'
>> their license. (Given the case vs. Novell, it's doubtful they'd even
>> have the right to do so, even *if* their contract case held any
>> water.)
>>
> I don't believe that SCO ever claimed anything more than contract
> violations.
Your beliefs and reality have seldom corresponded before. Go read the
(most recent) amended claim. Their claims have been getting
progressively narrower, but copyright in the form of 'illegal'
distribution of AIX is still there.
>> You're just pathetic. You didn't even read the links. As I just said,
>> AT&T specifically clarified this very section of the license (in
>> 1985!) and explicitly and publicly denied any claims to code authored
>> solely by the customer. Not just in their newsletter to Unix
>> customers (twice), but an AT&T exec has testified in a deposition
>> under oath that he specifically told customers (including
>> specifically Sequent, author of Dynix, source of RCU) that the clause
>> didn't mean what you are pretending it means.
>>
>> BTW, it was IBM who asked AT&T to clarify this issue back in 1985.
>>
>> The judge is giving SCO every possible bit of rope he can, to avoid
>> any chance of being reversed on appeal. This makes the preliminary
>> case take longer, but drastically limits the post-trial circus. Under
>> the circumstances, a prudent choice.
>>
> It seems to me that you are not reading the word that are printed there,
> ray. The agreement and clarification as to ATT not "owning" any rights
> to the derived work do not explicitly say that the prohibition against
> disclosure of the original is relieved in any way.
But, and here's the really fun part, SCO *isn't* claiming any problems
with giving Linux any part of the original SysV code. Go read the
complaint, seriously. The BSD decision would make that a loser tactic
anyway.
SCO is trying to claim that IBM can't donate things like JFS and RCU to
Linux, and that's simply not supported by... well, anything, really.
(Nice try to obfuscate the issue, BTW. Sometimes you're actually a
mildly clever troll. If only you'd use your meager powers for good
instead of evil. :-> )
> Certainly the
> derived work is going to contain the essence of the work that it is
> derived from and prohibiting disclosure of the latter is the same as
> prohibiting disclosure of the former.
Derived works are only derived under copyright law if they contain some
parts of the original. The code for the features under discussion
(specifically RCU and JFS) does not contain any SysV code, and therefore
is not a derived work under copyright law.
> I remember some discussion about
> IBM recognizing that obligation still in regard to their requiring
> anyone looking at AIX code to sign an NDA relative to the System V
> requirement.
Again, this is irrelevant since no one except you (not even SCO, go
look it up) is worried about SysV code.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Even if you understand something thoroughly, it can still be
marvelous, wonderful, and inspiring." - Me
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
Rick
No LOL!!! I LOL!!! haven't LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!.
So LOL!!! What LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!! ???? LOL!!!LOL!!!
LOL!!! LOL!! !LOL!!!
--
Rick
Rick
LOL!!!LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!
Hmmm, I thought discovery closes March 2006.LOL!!!LOL!!!
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!
--
Rick
Rick
Edwin
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3482261
February 10, 2005
Judge Says No to IBM's SCO Dismissal
By Jim Wagner
"The discovery portion of the trial, where both sides try to get as much
information from the other to build a case, was originally scheduled to
conclude Friday. "
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1834497,00.asp
SCO vs. IBM Trial Date Set for 2007
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
July 6, 2005
"Kimball also gave attorneys a deadline of Dec. 22, 2005, to "disclose
with specificity all allegedly misused intellectual property.""
billwg
>
> <http://www.boingboing.net/2004/09/04/gpl_court_challenge_.html>
> <http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395838556.html?oneclick=true>
>
Quite the laugher, rick! LOL!!! A muni court judge in Europe for
pete's sake? Come on now! Plus the injunction was only to publish the
tables that the defendant copied. There wasn't any value added even.
Rick
<http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566>
17-Mar-06
[466]
Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to
Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)
--
Rick
Ray Ingles
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.01.24....@nomail.com...
>>
> pete's sake? Come on now! Plus the injunction was only to publish the
> tables that the defendant copied. There wasn't any value added even.
"Iptables" is not static data, it's actual code to do network
filtering. If you can't even get the basic facts right, why should we
care about your opinion?
I'd be more inclined to trust a U.S. District Court judge, for example.
Like the honorable Patti Saris, who examined the GPL in detail in her
court (MySQL vs. NuSphere) and certainly didn't say anything about it
being invalid - indeed, she saw no reason it wouldn't be enforceable.
All she focused on was whether the Gemeni software at the heart of the
dispute was, in fact, derived from GPL code or not.
The case was ultimately settled out of court, in no small part because
the judge encouraged this specifically. Doesn't sound like a judge who
thought the GPL was invalid on its face.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Some people achieve immortality by great works. I'd like to
achieve it by not dying." - Woody Allen
rex.b...@gmail.com
Process" during the discovery process, however, the judge has stated in
preliminaries that he is not satisfied that SCO has a case up to this
point. SCO claims to have a "smoking gun", but so far all we've seen
is some smoke, and much of that is coming from SCO, not IBM.
It's ironic that Linux code, which has been published in source code
form, along with nearly all of the production notes and a very public
mailing list, along with newsgroups searchable by Google, and SCO can't
identify a single line of code which they can prove was owned
EXCLUSIVELY by SCO, and was copied illegally to Linux.
Keep in mind that the development process is so public that if an
individual did willfully and deliberately attempt to illegally place
copyrighted code into Linux, that individual could easily face criminal
penalties of up to 5 years in a Federal penetentiary.
SCO has to not only indentify the individuals who will admit to
illegally copying the code, but must also prove that they did so under
the direct orders of IBM management and executives, with their full
knowledge of the copyright violation.
The Judge in this case has given SCO every reasonable opportunity for
SCO to make at least a preliminary case, but thus far, the Judge has
made it quite clear that SCO has not made this preliminary case. There
are over 200 claims in their filing, which they have not been able to
prove, and which have been publicly contested.
The facts in this case are further complicated by the fact that AT&T
and Novell had published code, and had incorporated code created by
others, which was licensed on a non-exclusive basis. Furthermore, it's
beginning to look like SCO may have illegally incorporated GPL
technology in their proprietary code base.
Keep in mind that there are thousands of patches which have been
released for the GPL versions of Linux and GPL applications and
libraries, which have not been published under other licenses such as
BSD. If the authors of the original patches only published these
patches under GPL or similar "Give-Back" licenses, and SCO has
illegally applied these patches, it could mean that SCO will be
required to either unpatch the software (making it vulnerable to DOS
attacks based on frame buffer overruns), or publish the source code to
their current version of UNIX.
Ironically, IBM and SCO are keeping the records sealed, possibly
because they do not want this to become an issue. At the same time, it
does tend to limit the ability to respond with amicus briefings.
It could be interesting if SCO ended up trying to incorporate HURD and
Linux unique code into their versions of UNIX.
Unfortunately, the court seals tend to create a vacuum of information,
and leave all of these claims up to a speculation.
Linus has made the challenge - "Show me the code you think was stolen,
and we'll take it out". SCO refuses to do this, and will only allow
reviewers to access the code if they sign an agreement which prevents
them from using years, even decades, of previously aquired knowledge,
for anything other than SCO UNIX development.
At some point, the court will have to decide how much of these sealed
records should be kept under seal. Some of it may be legitimately
confidential, but much of it is accusations related to GPL code. If
the Judge can't even distinguish which code is in violation, then how
can the Linux community be expected to have known?
Again, the Linux community has publicly, and to the courts, expressed a
willingness to cooperate with ANYONE who feels that their code has been
illegally appropriated. Discussions are very public, and mailing lists
are quite easy to join. If someone has a legitimate claim of copyright
violation, or intellectual property rights violation, the Linux
community has made appropriate accomodation.
Most Linux distributions either purge ALL proprietary technology
(Debian), or they negotiate appropriate licensing and cross-licensing
of patents and copyrights (Red Hat and Novell).
We'll just have to see what the Judge thinks at this point.
The wheels of justice grind slowly, and even if SCO has a legitimate
claim, it could take years to get to a Jury, and is far more likely to
end in a summary judgement. About the best that SCO can hope for is to
have the judge rule that some minor claim is legitimate, and have IBM
settle for legal costs and some token concession.
The worst case scenario for SCO is that the judge could review the
evidence and determine in a preliminary ruling that this suit should
never have been filed, that SCO should pay all of IBM's legal fees, and
that SCO's assets can be held by the court until the judgement is paid.
In that scenario, the only winners would be SCO's legal team, and those
who were able to cash in on the manipulated stock prices.
Edwin
Thank you, Rick. That is much better than your previous reply.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
01/23/2006
at 11:51 AM, rex.b...@gmail.com said:
>I can't help but wonder what will happen if it turns out that SCO has
>no legitimate grounds for even filing the lawsuit against IBM in the
>first place.
A Rule 11 ruling won't mean much if there are no assets. When IBM
prevails and counter sues, will they be able to attach anything that
SCO has that will actually be of use to them?
>If there are absolutely no grounds for the lawsuit, and/or it can be
>proved that SCO had no legitimate claim prior to filing the lawsuit,
>then Daryl McBride is personally guilty of fraud, extortion, and
>blackmail, not to mention damage to the brand identities of Red Hat,
>Novell, IBM, and even Caldera.
While a corporate officer certainly has responsibility for crimes
committed on his watch, it is harder to nail him personally than to
nail the corporation. I'd certainly like to see IBM sue McBarratry,
but I don't know whether their legal staff would consider it worth
their effort, nor do I know whether he has enough assets for them to
recoup the expenditures.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail 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 spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
01/25/2006
at 07:20 AM, rex.b...@gmail.com said:
>The worst case scenario for SCO is that the judge could review the
>evidence and determine in a preliminary ruling that this suit should
>never have been filed, that SCO should pay all of IBM's legal fees,
>and that SCO's assets can be held by the court until the judgement is
>paid.
No, the worst case scenarios for SCO is for the judge to invoke
penalties under rule 11, for IBM to successfully sue for vexatious
litigation, for IBM to prevail in it's copyright suit against SCO, or
a conviction on criminal charges. Compared to those, simply paying
IBM's costs is minor.
Ray Ingles
>> Yes. It indicates that you do not know. How long do they have? It's
>> been 30 days since 12/22.
> I'd be surprised if it took more than six months for that motion to be
> filed, but not *too* surprised.
Looks like it'll be about six months. IBM can't file Dispositive
Motions now until 28-July-2006. And then, the deadline for reply briefs
for such motions isn't until 29-Sep-06.
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566
So, as I said, the wheels of justice grind slowly. But I think they'll
be grinding up SCO.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Don't get frustrated without it.
Jerry McBride
> begin In <1138045917.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, on
> 01/23/2006
> at 11:51 AM, rex.b...@gmail.com said:
>
>>I can't help but wonder what will happen if it turns out that SCO has
>>no legitimate grounds for even filing the lawsuit against IBM in the
>>first place.
>
> A Rule 11 ruling won't mean much if there are no assets. When IBM
> prevails and counter sues, will they be able to attach anything that
> SCO has that will actually be of use to them?
>
Well... hmmm... let's see... How about the front door mat???
--
Ray Ingles
> Looks like it'll be about six months. IBM can't file Dispositive
> Motions now until 28-July-2006. And then, the deadline for reply briefs
> for such motions isn't until 29-Sep-06.
> So, as I said, the wheels of justice grind slowly. But I think they'll
> be grinding up SCO.
Even SCO fully expects IBM to refile a motion for summary judgement:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060206201130674
I would guess that SCO is better-informed on the case than billwg,
who's predicted that they won't...
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-01-27, Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>> Looks like it'll be about six months. IBM can't file Dispositive
>> Motions now until 28-July-2006. And then, the deadline for reply
>> briefs
>> for such motions isn't until 29-Sep-06.
>
>> So, as I said, the wheels of justice grind slowly. But I think
>> they'll
>> be grinding up SCO.
>
> Even SCO fully expects IBM to refile a motion for summary judgement:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060206201130674
>
> I would guess that SCO is better-informed on the case than billwg,
> who's predicted that they won't...
>
pointed out a couple of weeks ago that SCO was sure to lose a summary
judgment regarding whether the linuxers had pooched code from System V
or from BSD. You also seemed to believe that such a judgment was
imminent, based on your hopes that the judge's comments had been
accurately reported by the linux e-press. You cited the "fact" that
discovery had closed in December and cited some resources as is your
wont. Now I merely pointed out that it had been some 30 plus days since
that date and IBM had yet to act. Others here cited a number of
articles that showed that your original idea of discovery closure was
ill formed. I do not believe that I have ever predicted that IBM would
not re-file. Of course you may have some cite handy!
Ray Ingles
> You are a hoot, ray! You take such liberties with the facts. You had
> pointed out a couple of weeks ago that SCO was sure to lose a summary
> judgment regarding whether the linuxers had pooched code from System V
> or from BSD.
So far so good. Then he goes off into fantasyland... basically none of
the following is true:
> You also seemed to believe that such a judgment was imminent
Nope, and I'd explicitly said so in this very thread. Recall the
"wheels of justice turn slowly" bit?
> based on your hopes that the judge's comments had been accurately
> reported by the linux e-press.
Note the subtle attempt to discredit the quotes themselves. A laughable
attempt, as the comments are (a) a matter of public record and (b)
reported far more widely than whatever Bill might define as "the linux
e-press". (As an aside, Bill, would you care to define that term?)
> You cited the "fact" that discovery had closed in December
Why is the word "fact" in quotes there? The best I can figure, he's
trying to sow confusion about the fact that there are several kinds of
discovery. Here's the actual timeline, which one will note I've linked
to before:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566
> Now I merely pointed out that it had been some 30 plus days since
> that date and IBM had yet to act.
And, as I'd noted, they cannot refile a motion for summary judgement
until the end of July. Again, as noted in the previously-linked
timeline. And now you know. (Well, actually, *then* you *knew*, but
you'd never admit that.)
> Others here cited a number of
> articles that showed that your original idea of discovery closure was
> ill formed.
I can't find an example of that. Please provide one.
> I do not believe that I have ever predicted that IBM would not re-file.
Half-true, you merely *implied* that with snarky questions.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6fe7d30587d9bb5b
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an
America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly
wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe -
dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian
president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively." - Jon Stewart