Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought? 470
Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.
No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
If they bring up real data, you could be in for some trouble. I'd not be too cocky until I knew for sure that the kernel is clean of any SCO data.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
2. They must then prove that it is data that they own, and have not authorized other companies to include in placed like Linux.
3. They must then show that it is not code that they, themselves, did not release into Linux, by revealing all of the contributions that they made.
Even then, they only have a case against whoever released it without autorization, and they can file a cease and desist to anybody who keeps distribuiting it after it is shown to be theirs.
Of course, this does not help them, because once it is known which lines of code in the Linux kernel came from SCO, it's fairly trivial to re-write those sections. Since their case depends entirely on these lines being identified and cited, I'm sure most distro companies will even be able to put out a "de-SCO" application that will bring old versions into compliance.
And the snippet says. . . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
That Novell, who seems to have retained the rights to the code hasn't (or doesn't in the future) grant rights to the code included in Linux. (You'd think the owner of SUSE might want to grant those rights too huh?)
SCO's position is laughable. Even if they get rights, are they eclusive rights, that prevent Novell from transferring or licensing them to the Linux community themselves. This seems to be a crux argument, and it certainly doesn't look good for SCO.
Cheers,
Greg
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:3, Informative)
Stop spreading FUD, you're becoming more and more like them.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they have a few macros. The funny thing is that two of those macros have a very minor bug in that they aren't threadsafe (using static instead of automatic temporary variables.) So if SCO claims they own those... then who the hell owns the threadsafe SysV header file macros that predate Linus' files?
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO claims that the amount of code in question is simply too big to replace, which implies they are using Linux being a UNIX clone as a defense. I highly doubt rewriting simple bits and pieces would be as tough as, say, a disk IO layer.
You have a point, though. The grandparent was a bit comfy in his dismissal.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Informative)
No, I don't see SCO getting much in retroactive damages and imnsho that isn't their plan. Actually fixing the problem kills their ability to license linux in the future. Byebye to the revenue stream they're betting the business on.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, but that is how SCO's plan is brilliant. It is a logical impossiblity to prove a negative. Thus, there will never be concrete proof that there are no violations of SCO's copyright in Linux.
Furthermore, you appear to have fallen for the other common trap, which is that there is SCO "data" in Linux. SCO put it there themselves. The real issue is the mythical existence of code that is somehow in violation of SCO's "IP rights".
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
Inside the court, there has been no talk by SCO of "millions of lines" or "literal copying". They seem to be following the line that IBM's contributions to Linux, if based directly or indirectly on AIX, were improper. And that until IBM details what those contri
Isn't tomorrow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Isn't tomorrow... (Score:5, Informative)
Even then we will not see what it is for a while less some of the papers are filed in a more public area.
you should read Groklaw.
Chahala
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO's Stock (Score:5, Informative)
From what I can see the vast bulk of SCO's stock appears to be owned by either SCO or people and business from the Canopy group so the small amount of dealing going on from people not in those groups is pretty small compared to the dealing going on by people in the groups.
This means that it's quite easy for Canopy and SCO to keep the stock price pretty high by simply trading it amongst themselves, specifically a lot of people have noticed that the stock begins to dive in the mornings but then before the close a number of trades will be made at very high prices leaving the stock with a high closing price.
Anyone interested should look for the links and commentary on Groklaw since my memory and understanding isn't perfect.
This has specific implications for anyone thinking of shorting the SCO stock because basically SCO and Canopy have pretty good control over what the stock does and that's bad news for people hoping that it will act as though it was largely owned by members of the public.
Re:SCO's Stock (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Informative)
The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement, ie: purchasing the rights to develop and deploy the original UNIX code. Obviously, the amendment leaves some play on both sides, but it's not entirely unreasonable for SCO to state (and then attempt to demonstrate) that ownership of the copyrights is required by them in order to defend against apparent illegal copyright infringment from a third party. In this instance, ownership of the copyright would allow SCO to defend its corporation and continue developing and deploying UNIX, and therefore may actually give SCO the rights it needs to claim ownership of the copyrights.
This isn't a cut-and-dry issue at all. There's a LOT of play, and while I have tremendous faith in IBMs lawyers, there is definitely more than one scenario where SCO could come out ahead.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
- The original agreement could be fulfilled by only granting copyright on the binaries (as a derivative work), not the source. SCO would need copyright on the source to sell it outright, but not to license it or create derivative works, which it appears possible is all the original agreement allows them to do.
- They don't need exclusive copyright to do any of the things which the original agreements give them the rights to; shared copyright is enough (and contrary to what most people seem to think, nothing in copyright law requires it to be exclusive). While it may be possible (if doubtful) for them to claim that they need full rights in order to be able to license Unix, it would be hard to interpret things in a manner which shows that they would need exclusive rights. Even if SCO won this part of the argument, Novell would have an argument that the amendment's granting of rights to SCO does not remove them from Novell.
- The original agreement grants SCO exclusive rights to license Unix; it does not guarantee they will do so profitably. Many arguments in favor of SCO's amendment two interpretation come down to "they won't make money if it's interpreted otherwise." Whether or not SCO manages to make money from it is immaterial. All that matters is whether or not they can license it, and even if you take Novell's interpretation as gospel, they can still do that.
As you note, there's a lot of wiggle room here, but in terms of their assault on Linux I'd say most of it is not on SCO's side of the argument.Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly. It says that they get "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
In other words, they get the rights to use, sell, and license code related to Unix and UnixWare. It doesn't say they have exclusive rights to it.
If I were to write a program, then sell you the rights to use it however you wanted, that wouldn't necessarily take away my rights to do whatever I wanted with it unless we both agreed to that in the terms of the contract.
The amendment even goes on to say that should either party be involved in a buy-out of the copyrights (complete transfer of all rights) the other must be notified. This clearly indicates that the Amendment doesn't transfer all rights to SCO.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Informative)
If SCO does not own the copyright there is no need for them to defend it -- that's the job of the copyright owner. And if there is no need for them to defend it, apparently they don't own it.
b.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to infringe somebody's copyright if they aquired the copyright AFTER you supposedly infringed it.
Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps there is no decline but it is possible that sales have been harmed anyway. Maybe RedHat would have sold 10x as many boxes this year if it wasn't for SCO. Everybody - and I mean everybody, not just the advocates - has been saying that this was the "boom year" for Linux. Sales have been disappointing for a "boom year". Maybe SCO was a factor in that.
Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
Where this story was posted yesterday, of course.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
According to Groklaw [find your own damn link] SCO needs to reply by 1/11/04 and the hearing on the Motions to Compel will be on 1/23/04.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, since they fired all their techs and replaced them with lawyers, nobody knows how to replace it.
Groklaw (Score:5, Interesting)
Famous /. quote badly understood by Hindus (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, buy 100 shares, sell 1 each to 99 Slashdotters...
Re:Fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting market reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
17.05 -0.95 / -5.28%
Re:Interesting market reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting market reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting market reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
for SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
HOWEVER, if they win in the quirky US legal system, who knows. They might make alot of money, and keep on putting out super duper products
Re: for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
> SCO has gone to far now to simply back off, or admit they were wrong. They have invested their whole business in this, and have no option but to go forward and proceed with litigation. If they back of now they loose face and the business will probably crash.
Like they care. We're not really dealing with SCO, we're dealing with The Canopy Group, which chased the ambulance, bought the wounded body, and threw it into passing traffic in hopes of suing on the body's behalf.
SCO is nothing more than Canopy Group's dirty bomb, deployed to extort money under the threat of wanton destruction. CG isn't going to shed any tears over the fate of the bomb.
Re: for SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Re: for SCO (Score:4, Funny)
Scary.... very scary...
Re: for SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wonder. If we are to believe Ransom Love's recent comments [com.com], "Darl took [trying to indemnify people who had used both Unix and Linux] in a little different direction than we intended."
On the other hand, Darl's dedication to making a buck for himself [thecopiernetwork.com] is well-documented.
Tinfoil had mode... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you're right, d00d, no one will listen. It's just too wacky sounding.
Also, a few points:
-To say that we are 'no longer living in a Democratic Republic' is nonsense. Am I worried about Ashcroft et al infringing on our Constitutional freedoms? Yes. Do I think that corporations have way too much influence in our society overall? Yes. But our court system and system of laws still works, more or less.
-"How are you going to live...When a gallon of gas costs 4 bucks? 5 bucks?" It already d
Re:Tinfoil had mode... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. I would, in fact, like some unbiased, professional references, particularly the state dept deaths.
2. The vote recount was bad politics on both sides, and a bunch of pathetic morons in S. Florida. Nothing conspiratorial there.
3. Given your units of measure, I'm assuming you're not American. Re: Commuting: We have a much bigger friggin country than any in Europe. Why not spread out a bit?
4. If you think coal and nuclear are anywhere near "old and dirty", you haven't been paying attention.
5. The "unbelieveable ludicrous things" is also an indication of not really paying attention. There are shitty bureaucrats in EVERY government, which is why we should be fighting for less gov't PERIOD. You just seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder against the current American one. As if any other gov't around the world is ANY better....
Re:Tinfoil had mode... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with most of your post but this one bothered me a bit. In the US cities are spread out precisely because of the automobile. Back when the Europeans were building the core of most of the cities that are big today, they had more room too. They just didn't have any personal transportation faster than a horse.
In the US cities started this way too. Before the automobile was mass produced, there was also considerably more public transportation in the big cities.
But the automobile didn't kill public transportation through fair competition. Ford bought several public transportation networks and deliberately put them out of business. As a libertarian, this should bother you just the same as if the government were to force public transportation on you.
Fast forward to today, and the difficulties of public transportation are more of culture than of cost. Honestly, trains in Stuttgart are considerably more comfortable, more reliable, safer, faster, and cheaper (despite ever-dwindling government subventions) than sitting in your car in rush hour in Houston or LA today. But public transportation is either non-existant, or has the stigma of being for poor people in most US cities whereas it doesn't have that stigma in Europe.
What this leads to is really ugly cities in the US. People have to build things further apart so that they can put huge fields of tar between the buildings. I never noticed how ugly that is until I got back from Europe where I hadn't had to look at it for a long time. I think in general people in the US are poorer for their decisions -- they just don't realize it, because they never get out of the country to compare.
In rural America, you are just plain right and I don't feel the need to argue those points, but in many American cities public transportation would be useful above and beyond the resources currently invested in it.
Re: for SCO - BlackParrot is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to take anything away from your very interesting points on the connection between the Bush Administration and oil, but I think you forgot that your whole post was supposed to provide a link between the Bush Administration and the Internet/OSS. Not a single fact that you bring up even alludes to this. Try to make your opening statements a little more accurate next time.
Today's Lesson (Score:2, Interesting)
Today's Lesson: It's better to deny the truth as long as you can, putting off going down in a spectacular and brilliant fireball until it's inevitable than face reality, appolgise and make the best of it.
Small wonder the rest of the world thinks americans are wackos. It's not just the way we do business, it's a way of life.
Re:Today's Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
The world thinks you're wackos, yes, but not for the reason you think. It's not because you don't back down -- that's an admirable trait -- but because you do things for three reason
Another nail in the coffin (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's just hope that they remain Linux-friendly.
A mistake in your .sig (Score:3, Funny)
Y0uR s1gN4tUR3 h4S aN eRR0r : y()u sUr3ly w4Nt t0 sA`/ "@|\| Ub3r 3l33t", no7 "Ub5r".
G33z, th0s3 y0uNG b0yZ r3alLy dO|\|'7 |<n0W ho\^/ t0 sP3LL...
Not really, though.. (What -does- the deal say?) (Score:3, Insightful)
The original Asset purchase agreement [groklaw.net] does not give SCO any copyrights, but amendment 2 [sec.gov] to the deal raises questions. SCO says this gives them copyrights, Novell disagrees.
What does the amendment say?
The section on assets excluded from the deal is:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights
No, Thanks to IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No, Thanks to IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean come on, (Score:5, Funny)
Legal writing though very explicit and written typically in cover-all-bases fashion, is way too complicated to be understood by us mere mortals. (lawyers are not mortals, they are the undead). And SCO's boat was already sinking when they supposedly bought these rights, So the competency of their legal department is highly questionable. I bet they had some pro-bono lawyer working on this.
Re:I mean come on, (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not directly. But he was working for Novell when he managed this licensing arrangement. Later, he became CEO of SCO Group 'n' started shenanigans.
My bet is that he knows *exactly* what they put in which licensing agreements.
I'd like to believe... (Score:5, Insightful)
This would still leave me with some faith in major software corporations, whereas the view of SCO knowing what they were buying and subsequently stirring up all this crap makes me want to wince.
Then again, on second thought, why would I want to have faith in a company that can't read the fine writing? They try to get my to sign my life away each EULA I click by hiding things in the fine writing.
It's like trying to barrack for a winner between Carrot Top and Rosanne Barr. Oh the humanity!
Re:I'd like to believe... (Score:5, Informative)
The old SCO may have known exactly what they were buying. But the new SCO has to do a lot of detective work.
It should be noted that Tarantella has recently expanded their product support for Linux. They wouldn't do this if they thought SCO had a case, and being the ones that acquired UNIX from Novell, they're in the best position to know.
Coyote to Air, "You're a rock, I'm not falling." (Score:5, Insightful)
Effectively, SCO is maintaining it's stance that it is on firm ground, with assets well in hand, for the alternative is disaster. Deny reality as long as possible, hope stock price rises as gullible investers throw away money and sell (which SCO execs did) before reality asserts itself. Nice ploy, when you got nothing else.
Why yes, they did (Score:3, Funny)
"Thank you sir, can I have another?"
More Kool-Aid, Darl? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cease and desist (Score:3, Funny)
more than a FUD campaign? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's not be too smug (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let's not be too smug (Score:4, Interesting)
So, let's say SCO is right and Novell wrote a contract that says (simplified for the sake of argument), "SCO now owns everything having to do with Unix ever." Did Novell ever have the right to grant such to SCO?
Given the amount of code put into the public domain, and given the number of products descended in one way or another from System V, is it even legally feasible for a company to claim it has gained all rights to something one, two, three generations back from my current product, and therefore owns rights to my product?
I'm afraid this hasn't made any sense to me from the beginning.
Re:Let's not be too smug (Score:3, Informative)
So, since companies have been gladly (well, probably not all that gladly) paying NOVELL for all these years, NOVELL must own it... right?
Massive nose dive! (Score:4, Funny)
On that note... (Score:2, Funny)
Remember current SCO != old SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the current SCO is probably just the 5th owner of the very diluted "Unix licencing rights" - AT&T first sold it to USL (Unix System Labs), which was bought by Novell, which resold the licencing rights to the old SCO, which sold off parts of the company to Caldera, which rebranded itself "The SCO Group".
Of course, the current SCO management tries to confuse this issue, probably as they would rather have everyone forget all their contractual obligations with the previous owners.
More? (Score:3, Funny)
Sweet! More detail on Linux Developer Gets Laid [bbspot.com]!
I can't wait... (Score:3, Funny)
You can only hope...
New light on the subject (Score:4, Interesting)
If what is being said here is true, then that must mean that the people at SCO are not liars, they're just embarassingly stupid!!
You know? This is beginning to make a little more sense... but can the SCO people be put in jail for being ridiculously stupid and making people suffer needlessly from it?
something smells funny (Score:5, Informative)
of course, SCO has yet to show that the whole copyright claim isn't just a big bucket of warm spit in the first place.
The whole thing just highlights... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, is anyone satisfied that the legal future of Linux rests in the hands of SCO, IBM, Novell and the US legal system? We've all been waxing rhapsodic over IBM, and it looks like this news is going to make us do the same for Novell. But really, hasn't IBM wielded the big stick of IP enough to at least make us a little nervous? What about Novell, they signed an agreement which opened the door to this particular nightmare, not a glowing review of their due diligence, after all, one should at least contingency plan for this kind of suit when making such deals...
Nor are their motives quite the same as the grass roots. I wouldn't even try to defend the thesis that IBM and Novell are not in it for their own best interests. I also don't see any reason to believe that their best interests are necesarilly Linux's.
It's nice to see these guys in the white (or maybe just real light gray) hats, but it is trivial to change your hat. The enemy of my enemy != my friend, ally - perhaps, confederate - okay, but friend, I don't think so.
The problem is none of the players have a mandated interest in promoting and protecting Linux, both are in it for financial motivations, when the wind starts blowing profits another way, both will jump ship as quick as they are able.
What to do? I confess I don't know. It'd be nice for Linux/FOSS to maybe have an associated legal entity tasked with promoting Linux/FOSS in the market and protecting Linux/FOSS in the law. Ideally, a not-for profit organization. (A honest to goodness charity would be better, at least your legal defense contributions would be a tax deduction...)
Ultimately, the nature of Linux/FOSS to not be beholden to anything/one has been one of the greatest strengths. It is part and parcel of the success we have seen since Linus released our obsession on the world. However, this lack has now come full circle as we are essentially forced to watch the legal fate of Linux/FOSS be placed in the hands of one company who wishes to smash it, two which seek to exploit it, and the US legal system.
Joseph Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the pope have?" I can easily see Darl Mcbride saying, "How many lawyers does Linus have?" way back before this mess all started.
Okay, I admit it, I've just been waiting for a reason to compare Joseph Stalin and Darl McBride.
Re:The whole thing just highlights... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The whole thing just highlights... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's take your position, so now the Linux companies are either out of business or out of Linux. This is an improvement how? This advances any of the goals that various sectrors of the Linux community embrace how?
Okay, maybe it won't eradicate Linux from the face of the Earth, but it will effectively reduce it to a hobbyist OS again.
The enemy here has allready proven that they are better at manipulating the media machine. The ODSL for examp
Re:The whole thing just highlights... (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is the party defending Linux for Linux's own sake? This is the thrust of my question. A plea more to the OSDLs, OSIs, and FSFs to get off their asses, work together, and start providing that role.
Yoyodyne Connection Overlooked (Score:5, Funny)
Darl McBride, President and CEO
Darl Bench, CFO
Darl Mott, Director
Darl Yarro III, Chairman of the Board
Darl Bawa, CTO
Darl Sontag, Sr VP, OS Group
Darl Broughton, Sr VP
Darl OConnor, Sr VP
Darl Bigbooty, Sr VP
Darl Parrot, Sr VP
Darl SmallBerries, Sr VP
Their social security numbers are consecutive, and were all issued on the same day. Coincidence?
IAA Confused L (Score:5, Interesting)
When you buy technology, you buy 2 classes of assets: (1) the tangible (which includes stored electrons) real-world implementations of the stuff, like copies of the software, units of hardware, copies of manuals, and so on; and (2) the intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, embodied in the tangible stuff.
The way I'm reading the contract (which could be wrong -- I took a pretty quick pass through it) Novell sold SCO the "stuff" without any of the rights associated with the stuff. In other words, because the stuff was software, Novell sold them pretty much nothing.
When I've done these deals in the past, the purchaser either gets the associated IP rights as part of the deal, or a REALLY broad license to them. From the looks of things, SCO didn't even have the right to make copies of the stuff it bought. That's completely incoherent from a transactional point of view.
That argues for 2 things: (1) SCO's lawyers really pooched it in this deal, which is certainly possible -- I've seen some really dumb language come out of high-end firms, and/or (2) SCO is right, and the agreement couldn't possibly mean what Novell thinks it means, because that makes no sense. SCO might not be able to get that enforced without a court action to do what's called "reformation" of the contract, where the court goes in and rewrites the contract to make it coherent. This is a really rare remedy, BTW, for obvious reasons.
Please, someone who's read this document more closely, feel free to correct me.
-------
explain something to me (Score:5, Interesting)
They knew this data existed (hello, the linux kernel and all of the CVS logs are open source, they can be read by anyone)
They have the same copies of the contracts as everyone else (Novel, Sun, ect)
They had to know that a judge was going to make them produce evidence and this "We can't show the conflicting code" thing wouldn't fly with a judge.
I worked for a dot-com that provided a service to Corporate Law Firms and I know that they go through a lot of trouble to do their homework. Some of these things would have not slipped their radar.
So is all if this (including us tearing up SCO's claims) just part of their plan? Are we missing the real target of McBride and SCO? I find it hard to belive that SCO and their legal team are, or have ever gone "Oh Shit" since this all started. More like they are saying "This is going exactly to plan".
Someone please shed some light
Blatent Ploy |OT| (Score:5, Interesting)
Open Letter to SCO [accrc.org]
Dear Sirs:
It has come to my attention that you claim certain intellectual properties involved in the UNIX operating system and that you intend to prosecute those who violate those claims.
To be more specific you claim that Gnu/Linux is a derivative of your Unix IP and as such is your IP. After extensive research on my own part and reviewing the considered opinions of those in the field of IP litigation I have concluded to my own satisfaction that your position consists of bullpuckey.
As such I feel I should bring my company to your attention. My name is James Burgett and I am the executive director of a not for profit organization called Computer and Technology Resource Center (CATRC). We recycle unwanted equipment and give it to underprivileged people throughout the world.
What I feel should come to your attentions is this: We install Gnu/Linux on over 1200 machines a year and we fully intend to continue. We send said computers to schools, not for profits and underprivileged people throughout the world. We have been doing so for over 3 years and I can safely say that all of them could be classed as "servers". On the basis of your pricing (assuming that our inevitable litigation extends past your discount deadline), my organization owes you at least $ 5,036,400 (5+ million).
We also advocate the further distribution of your alleged IP by other agencies and governments at home and abroad and could quite possibly be held liable for a lot more. (I'm sure you can come up with a price for this.) We have also assembled many multi processor systems (By the way, what is your price for multiprocessor systems?)
So based on an assessment of our operations and your claims. I have concluded the following:
Your ownership of the IP is dubious at best (Novell copyrights, Unix system labs vs. UC Berkeley, distribution of all contested IP by you under the GPL while Caldera,.... etc.)
Your ability to enforce your claims is laughable at best (you would have to deal with Novell's copyrights before you can sue anybody, then demonstrate that you did not release said IP as your Linux distribution and last that you have the right to those copyrights at all as they seem to violate some of IBM's patents. This combined with the fact that your lead attorney seems to be under investigation in Florida that may lead to his disbarment leads me to the conclusion that you are not a credible threat.
Your only redeeming feature is your histrionic and ill-conceived rants, which admittedly have an enviable ability to generate press.
As you represent no threat and can only bring us press, I humbly request that you use us in your act of corporate self-destruction.
If you choose not to sue us I should inform you that I have been consulting with my attorneys about options for initiating lawsuits against you based on some of the fallacious claims made by you about operations such as ours that use Gnu/Linux. You have made direct accusations about Gnu/Linux and its users that could only be construed as accusations of theft.
As I am not a thief and find your accusations harmful from both a personal and corporate standpoint I demand that you immediately cease and desist from your unsubstantiated statements or face litigation.
In conclusion let me thank you for this wonderful opportunity to promote our message on your dime and fully expect to be giving away what you claim is your IP long after your company is dead and gone.
Yours sincerely:
James Burgett
Executive Director
Computer and Technology Resource Center
Primary website: www.accrc.org
email james@accrc.org
Amendment 1 limits SCO's rights to SVRx (Score:5, Interesting)
Given this limited right, why would SCO need ownership of the SVRx copyrights in order to exercise their rights under the agreement.
Hence SCO did not get the SVRx copyrights. What SCO bought was really the UnixWare business. Not UNIX!
Unbelievably sloppy agreements!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they did an amendment to fix this all up, supposedly. What did SCO get then? Not much, arguably. Basically it seems to be a circular grant - all copyrights SCO needed in order for SCO to exercise the rights it acquired. But WTF did they acquire in the first place?
Sheer incompetence on someone's part, it would seem.
Since some court is going to have to give SOME meaning to this pile of turd, I would venture to say that what SCO got was in effect an agreement that Novell wouldn't assert against them any copyright (or trademark) that would prevent them from exercising commercial rights in UNIX. Maybe some judge will cut them a break and read this more generously, but I just don't see in this obfuscated verbiage an omnibus written transfer of all copyrights. I've got to believe this is (still) a HUGE cloud on SCO's title.
Wouldn't you all be tempted to believe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mcbride would live the dream and have the "ring which binds them all", if you could own all OS's besides windows and make billions! We all would like to be moral and help Linux but many of us would go crazy at the thought of owning all this money and power. Mcbride himself feels he does not want to destroy Linux. He just wants a cut if its used in business.
I am poor right now and I would admitedly be tempted. I might even make a compromise like what Mcbride did and allow linux free for non commercial users. Yes, I would be a jerk and might not go through with it, but a fast talking salesmen/laywer might make a difference.
Remember the lawyers get paid only if this goes through. They do not give a shit about Unixware, Linux or SCO. They care about green dollars.
People tend to believe what they want to believe.
My guess is Bois sold Mcbride like a salesman and Mcbride thought something on the line of "shit! If Bios is right, I have a lottery ticket!". The thought would be tempted. When the 70 lines of BSD code were found, he went hysterical saying "AHA, I win!".
Part of his makeup could of been influenced from the MS case of licensing doublespace disk compression for DOS. Caldera, now SCO group won 40 billion! After a win like that, it probably went to his head.
Don't trip while you're backpeddling, Darl (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone remember that cocky photo on sco.com's webpage with Darl McBride saying "Just as there's no free lunch, there's no free Linux"? It was there a few days ago.
It ain't there anymore.
Re:My Dream: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My Dream: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought? (Score:4, Funny)
So what is your interpretation of Amendment #2?
(Said in Cartman's voice), Oh, I'm sorry.. you don't have an interpretation of Amendment #2.....
I know, I don't know that.
Re:Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought? (Score:5, Informative)
Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.
Further, that copyrights can only be transferred, under title 17, in writing, and that a vauge assertion that there is an agreement to transfer certain copyrights in the event they are required does not constitute a transfer in writing.
What is your interpretation?
Re:Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought? (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone is a member of the militia. But to be well regulated you have to practice with your weapon, that part requires you to bear arms....
Re:2nd Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
The Second amendment can be read (and I believe, should be read) to provide a conditional right to keep and bear arms. That condition is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." If that condition ceases to exist, then the right is no longer relevant.
It can be argued that a
Re:Utah Judge (Score:5, Informative)
However, this expires at midnight, so expect something the next morning.
Re:Utah Judge (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SCO needs to stop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Playing out as I predicted in June (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO, Darl McBride are very stupid people (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, someone as stupid as that should not be allowed to advance any farther than US President.
Re:One of my fantasies (Score:3, Insightful)
However to really complete the picture Boies and company will probably file a counter-suit (and they may even have a point) claiming they were misled on extent of SCO ownership of the Unix IP.