SCO To Counter Groklaw With 'Fair' Coverage 557
linuxwrangler writes "Tired of being 'flamed, dissected and dismissed' on Groklaw, SCO has decided to fight back. SCO's site, scheduled for launch on November 1, will be called prosco.net. Just yesterday SCO CEO and favorite /. whipping-boy Darl McBride gave a speech comparing the software industry to the 'wild west' and warning companies that they must protect their intellectual property or risk being 'sacked by open source-touting bandits.'"
Wild Wild West (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO is an idiot for doing this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We HAVE to slashdot that site! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't we, instead, just completely ignore SCO and McBride and their ilk, and just let IBM pick their bones. The only press they are getting is when Linux supporters react to McMouth's gasings. So, NO responses to any 'news' articles, or anything else about SCO and their attempted theft of the Linux kernel and associated utilities will do more to make McBride look the fool he is than any of our responses. He's old news. Forget him.
Yeah, that'll work (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gentlemen, start your googlebombs. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New gold my hiney (Score:5, Interesting)
Question remains... (Score:3, Interesting)
As is so often the case, the question here is "how is this issue any more relevant to Open Source than it is to proprietary software?"
Is there any reason to believe that open source developers (who have every reason to believe that they would be caught) would be more likely than closed-source developers (who have a much smaller chance of getting caught) to "steal" someone else's IP?
Damn those evil open source developers! Always stealing my IP, and me with no way to tell, or prove it. You know, unless I look at the code or something. Damn them! And God bless the closed source developers, who don't show me their code, but whom I trust implicitly anyway.
Re:Good 'ol Darl... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is disingenuous, though. As PJ and every Groklaw reader knows, this behavior is typical and wholly unsurprising. SCO are idiots, and their lawyers at this point are merely scrambling to avoid malpractice censure.
My only regret is that when this is all over, and McBride is just a humorous case study at every B-school in America, a great source of daily entertainment will be no more.
But I will deal. Somehow.
How humiliating (Score:5, Interesting)
So now it's not about IBM, it's not about UNIX, it's not about Linux, it's not about 'Intellectual Property'.
Now it's about a lone ex-paralegal who had the balls (and i mean that in the nicest way possible) to tell it like it is.
We can't have that, can we Darl? God forbid anyone actually accept a version of events that corresponds with legal and technical realities instead of simply believing whatever stupid lies you cooked up after another hard night on the Canopy crackpipe.
Whats next, are you going to come up with an alternate justice system because no court in the US will accept SCO's ridiculous legal 'arguments' either?
People *hate* what you and your company are doing, Mr. McBride.
It is wrong, and no amount of P.R. spin will change that. Shame on you.
Foot-shoot (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure if they could've given Groklaw more legitimacy if they tried.
Who are they aiming at? Certainly they must understand that they have no chance whatsoever at building up the kind of community and following Groklaw has?
So who, then? Journalists? Which journalist is going to quote 'pro-SCO.net' as a source? And if they do, in the future, it's hardly likely they'd do it without quoting Groklaw.. now that they're officially 'the other side'.
(The question of who, in such an exchange, is going to come out sounding more trustworthy is left as an exercise for the reader.)
It's a setup, folks... Don't fall for it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't let them win (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I suggest DOSing under any circumstances...no matter how stupid the recipient might be.
Re:I can only hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, the business world is full of idiot-greed-mongers just like Darl. I'm sure he is a cult hero at Forbes [forbes.com]. So I would suggest that there are probably many such 'business leaders' who either do believe him or would believe him if they knew anything about the on-going litigation.
I'm not going to name any names, but there is at least one Fortune-500 company that has a "no F/OSS unless absolutely neccessary" policy that is a direct result of SCO's rhetoric.
There's Truth in Them Thar Hills (Score:2, Interesting)
There is, perhaps, a bit of irony in Darl McBride's choice of gold-rush metaphor. He seems obsessed with IP, and even states that "The new gold is IP". What he doesn't seem to understand is the old saying about how the only people who get rich in a gold rush are the ones selling the pick-axes and shovels to the dollar-sign-eyed prospectors.
It's clear from The SCO Group's lawsuits and 'SCOsource' licensing efforts that they are not in the mining equipment business in their gold rush. Indeed, they have invested heavily in trying to mine IBM, and others, through the courts and by their threats of litigation. How appropriate it is that they are based in the Rocky Mountains!
Re:New gold ... is greed (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, greed is nothing new, but "IP" is just a way for companies to milk something that isn't really there. To be fair, I do believe there is some innovative effort that deserves protection, but the key word here is "innovative". Amazon's "one-click" patent, for example, is in NO WAY innovative. Most of the patent applications coming from the software industry aren't innovative, they're just attempts to steal empowerment from the public at large.
I was thinking about this the other day - software is the only industry I know where an individual or company has the right to own common methods. What if, for example, I went to the hardware store to buy some lumber, nails, and a hammer so that I could build something that would add value to my life? What if I also had to consult a patent attorney before doing so, fearing that the method I use to construct this item might be covered by someone's patent? The idea is ludicrous, but this is the very situation that we now face in the software industry. Every time a developer puts an idea into code, there is a very real possibility that a patent violation is in the works - not intentional, not maliscious, but by mere virtue of the fact that the developer has the ability to empower both him/herself and others by what they produce. Any alleged infractions exist only because someone also had the same idea, and was greedy enough to claim ownership.
Let's face it - this isn't about IP. It's about greed, lockout, and theft of empowerment.
So sad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:New gold my hiney (Score:5, Interesting)
So who's running the site? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to hear their story -- are they just doing it for the buck? Do they believe what their web site is promoting?
Re:Good 'ol Darl... (Score:5, Interesting)
Given SCO's history, it may well have been said tongue in cheek. But it is actually surprising, and always has been, that the law team hasn't muzzled McBride and company. That is typically how these things are done. You don't see IBM execs shooting their mouths off, after all, even though they have been the ones accused of wrongdoing. You can bet that any lawyer worth their fees will tell their client to shut up and let them do the defending in the court.
In fact, SCO's behavior has been so surprising, I wouldn't be a bit shocked to one day learn that they overrode their lawyers, or they worked in concert with their lawyers, to try the case in the court of public opinion since they knew they had no real chance in court. Of course, that would imply nefarious behavior on SCO's part, and I wouldn't want to speculate on that. Who knows what they really think. But yeah, it is suprising that SCO would comment on ongoing litigation. The smart move is to say, "No comment."
Re:prosco? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can only hope (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a Red Herring! (Score:1, Interesting)
1. they will not know the hit count
2. we get to comment truthfully
Steps To Protecting IP (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right, companies should protect their "IP". And how do we do that? Let's review:
IP Gold Rush? Pah! (Score:4, Interesting)
In a gold rush, lots of get-rich-quick types run around trying to grab a nominally free resource (minerals lying on the ground) and peddle it as their property. Some of them are rather, shall we say, unscrupulous in their methods.
If we accurately apply this metaphor to the situation of IP, and more particularly to Open Source software and the IP rights thereto, the present SCO are a bunch of thieving claim-jumpers screaming "Mine! My Preciousss! Gollum!", and the Open Source community are out there giving the stuff away for free -- as long as you're willing to share it fairly.
"Counter-cultural," says Mr. McBride? Maybe so; I for one am totally counter to the culture he advocates. Let's counter that culture for all we're worth!
Once again, failing to see the point... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they go to Groklaw because the content is GOOD. While Groklaw may not even pretend to be impartial, what they DO succeed in doing is sticking to facts. They start with the extant nature of our law, and apply it to facts and statements that are put forth in public documents. This analysis is what the people go to Groklaw to read. And while the analysis tends to support Groklaw's supporters' views, I think that is actually a chicken-and-egg thing; if SCO wasn't wrong, the law wouldn't work against them, and Groklaw's volunteers wouldn't so dearly relish the thought of McBride being sodomized by a gorilla.
So SCO is coming up with a dog-and-pony show equivalent to their press releases? So what? It's just the same content that couldn't compete with Grokloaw in the first place, just fluffed out into more pages.
Re:New gold ... is greed (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe we should approach the battle against software patents the other way around. Instead of looking for ways to protect against patents and/or get patents for OSS, why not play the game out to its ultimate consequences. Start up a website and start matching patents with software products: when a likely match is found, notify the patent holder, the software vendor and possibly the software users of this potential patent violation. For the large fish (IBM, Microsoft, etc.) focus on the patents of patent trolls: litigation companies existing merely of a patent portfolio. If lots of companies are targetted, this would create a lot of publicity and when there's a website to back up the claims, there's a lot of proof about the untenability of the situation. Furthermore: it only takes work, not deep pockets to do this.
If the situation is as bad as is claimed, this would mean that any software vendor and/or webshop is forced to concede the fact that they can be put out of business overnight due to patents. Once this awareness is there it would just be a matter of time before the case law is overturned. As an example see this site [ffii.org]. Imagine it targetted at real software products and real webshops. Probably we can match a couple of hundred patents to any particular product/shop, showing the seriousness of the situation, while at the same time confronting the potential victims with it. I know, this is a real weird proposal, but the question is: would it do the trick?
Re:I can only hope (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems kind of strange given they are supposed to be a *NIX company.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.pro
Looking forward to it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, it doesn't mean I'd agree with them. I still think SCO is full of shit and hope it gets what it deserves.
Thanks for mentioning Groklaw, Darl! (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course, if Darl was smart, he wouldn't have gotten himself into the predicament he's in.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so..."
Flogging a dead horse (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good Analogy McBride. I like it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Costner movies? Hell, boy. This is Blazing Saddles!
The analogy sort of starts to break down here. For example, who's Bart and the Waco Kid (Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder)? Red Hat and IBM? What about Olsen Johnson, Rev. Johnson, and Gabby Johnson? Linus, Stallman, and ESR?
One thing's certain: that campfire scene with the cowboys eating beans and farting? Slashdot. For sure.
k.
Re:A slightly better analagy might be.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Nailing four boards together into a square configuration is covered by patent law, not copyright law. All kinds of wall systems, paints and construction assemblies are patented all the time. Just about the only thing that isn't patented is a 2x4. Even some brick glazings and concrete admixtures are patented. Unless you are in manufactured housing however, it is almost impossible to patent an entire building, because every building is unique in some way and most of the techniques are based on principles which are hundreds of years old.
As far as copying someone else's blueprints, in architecture the owner is entitled to use the architects design as long as the owner pays the architect for his services, that doesn't mean he always has access to the drawings to copy them. In architecture, the design and the drawings are separate entities. The drawings are copyrighted and owned by the architect, the design is an interpretation of the drawings by the architect, the contractor carries out the means and methods by which the design is implemented, the owner 'owns' the product or building, provides the land and money for that building to built and tells the architect what the building is supposed to do and pays his fees.
When an architect gets fired, he is to be paid for the services he has rendered, and then a new designer picks up where he left off by redrawing everything for himself and carrying on from there, most architects however will loan their drawings to the new architect as a professional courtesy for them to redraw from, sometimes they are obligated to do this under their contract. All architects used to write in their contracts that you couldn't use their design if they were fired, but this was thrown out in court about 70 years ago, and marked the end of the old school profession.
Needless to say, architecture is a high stakes profession at times. Sometimes billions of dollars exchange hands in complicated deals that equal/exceed anything that typically happens in the software profession, involving an owner, architect, contractor, local government, state government, federal government, banks, lenders, shareholders, consultants, tenants, utility companies, suppliers and manufacturers and so on and so forth. All of this must be accomplished with very low failure tolerance, any one of these issues can stop a project dead in its tracks. Take the New World Trade Center project for example, it must be a nighmare to organize that based on the infrastructure alone. The only reason this comes together at all is because everyone has an implicit and explicit understanding what they are supposed to do and they get paid. I think the main problem with software is that there isn't a long tradition of making software. People don't know what is practical or traditional, so they think up and imagine all kinds of ways to give themselves leverage in confusing ways. This creates a minefield of problems specifically intended to bring ruin to another party and make vast amounts of money for very little work. I would wager there are more lawsuits in the building industry, but the overall risk level is lower because those risks are insured for one, and two, people know what to expect and performance and benefit can easily be measured (did that wall fall down, does that roof leak, is there mold in the ductwork, was I paid what I was worth, etc.) and we have 10,000 years of building experience to rely on. Software has about 50 years of relevant history.
In software, who owns what isn't easily established, it isn't a standard practice, no one knows what anything means or what it is truly worth. What is a graphical tree interface worth, I have no idea? Is it worth $1 billion or $1.99, who knows? Compare that to architecture, where even if there is no contract signed, typical business practices are so strong that a contract is always implied and everyone is always held to known standards.
Re:Sounds good (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course that is correct.
The issue is whether in fact anything was stolen.
SCO's case on this appears to be quite weak, by all objective analysis.
One would imagine that they thought they could bluff other companies, or at least get them to settle for less than their defense would cost. So far no one has played that game.
One could also speculate that a fraction of a percent of Microsoft's cash-on-hand was used to finance this whole kerfuffle, even though they never expected to win. The objective was to slow down Linux for a year or two. That, they seem to have accomplished in a limited way.
But that would just be speculation.
Or Wile E Coyote? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wile E is particularly apt because he leaves everyone guessing about who is funding his unending stream of Acme contraptions, and because the bird is always too fast [in.tum.de] for him.
Re:New gold my hiney (Score:3, Interesting)