Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
Caldera Software Linux

SCO - EV1, Licensees, Groklaw, Armed Guards 778

Camel Pilot writes "It looks like the CEO of EV1Servers underestimated the reaction to giving in to SCO demands and licensing Linux. I know we were looking for a new hosting home, and had EV1 at the top of the list, but now they are not even a consideration..." An anonymous reader writes "InfoWorld has an article with more info on Computer Associates denying being a SCO Linux licensee." Also, Mick Ohrberg writes "Pamela Jones, creator of Groklaw, an independent legal research site, responds to some allegations presented by SCO CEO Darl McBride." Finally, an anonymous reader writes "According to the Deseret News, Darl McBride says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month." Update: 03/08 20:17 GMT by S : cdlu writes "Now the SEC is unofficially confirming some interest in the SCO and Microsoft connection, according to Newsforge [part of OSDN, like this site]."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO - EV1, Licensees, Groklaw, Armed Guards

Comments Filter:
  • Give me a break!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:06PM (#8501616) Homepage Journal
    Darl McBride says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month

    Lets see... one guy pisses off a buncha nerds. He's afraid of firepower?
    Uhh... Darl... the only thing you need to worry about is stuff like cracking your servers and DoS attacks. Both of which you have survived.

    Really, if frivilous lawsuits caused people to fear for their lives, something is wrong witht his world.
  • by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:08PM (#8501631)
    Check out the update at Yahoo [].

    From the article, The Islandia, N.Y., company, one of the biggest makers of corporate software, said that although it signed the licenses, it didn't pay for them -- and never would

    Signed but not paid???
  • by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:09PM (#8501641)
    From the article:
    " ... Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected." ..."

    Like, SCO can read, understand, or comply with a contract; that they can be relied upon to disclose factual information, and that they're not in a media war. Give me a break. What the hell did you expect?
  • by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:09PM (#8501642) Homepage Journal
    Well, the fact remains, he started making bogus allegations about a particular social group.

    Now I'm not one to make threats (instead, I just tell him to put up or shut up), but in any social group, there will be those who will feel the need to take extreme measures against a threat, be it real or perceived.

  • by microcars ( 708223 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:09PM (#8501651) Homepage
    from the article:

    Along with the PR backlash, Marsh said he is also disappointed that SCO officials have spoken to media outlets about the financial terms of the contract between SCO and EV1.

    "Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction."

    so now they can sue SCO and get their money back!

  • by CaptainCheese ( 724779 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:11PM (#8501685) Journal
    EV1Servers underestimated the reaction to giving in to SCO demands

    So they bought a licence, big deal. He's just covering his ass, and the ass of everyone who chooses EV1. The courts will not rule in IBM's favour just because linux geeks don't like it. Hell, it's not like it even matters! We havent even SEEN the "evidence" yet. what if SCO really does have a case, and they suddenly start suing every colo firm that runs linux?
  • by The-Dalai-LLama ( 755919 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:14PM (#8501717) Homepage Journal

    In January, McBride's unlisted home telephone number was placed on Hackers also targeted the company's Web site... McBride said he sometimes carries a gun...

    I'm not a big fan of people taking the law into their own hands, but...

    It's one thing to throw rocks at someone from the safety of a cushy penthouse and the security of a legal/corporate structure designed to benefit and serve you (and those like you). Must be a tad unsettling to find that one's actions as a corporate entity can lead to consequences in the real world.

    On another note...

    McBride said he sometimes carries a gun, declining to specify the type...

    If his handgun is as powerful as his legal standing, I'm guessing it's a .32 automatic.

    The Dalai LLama
    "If someone ever shot me with a .22 and I found out about it, I'd be mad as hell!" - Some Texas Ranger

  • by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:14PM (#8501723) Homepage
    Really, if frivilous lawsuits caused people to fear for their lives, something is wrong witht his world.
    OK, it's fun to knock Darl, but let's face it: We live in the kind of world where, if a woman dumps a guy she's not into anymore and he takes it kinda hard, she can find herself in fear of her life. We live in the kind of world where, if some kids decide they're sick of being unpopular at school, a whole bunch of people can end up in fear of their lives. We live in the kind of world where, if one driver cuts off another on a Los Angeles freeway, that person can find himself in fear of his life. Hate to rob you of your innocence, but it's a lousy world in a lot of ways.

    I think the chances that Darl McBride has received death threats, both at his place of business and his residence, are so close to 100 percent as makes no difference. Some people can laugh that stuff off. Others choose to take it seriously. Who can argue with either approach?

  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:14PM (#8501724)
    It's not surprising that anything SCO would sign would contain limited disclosure clauses. But, since Darl has clearly tried to claim that EV1 gave SCO $1,000,000+ in cash, and EV1 seems to want to stomp that down... can't EV1 sue SCO for breach of the agreement just a few days after it was signed?
  • I don't thinks so...I think the SEC thinks we are a bunch of miscreants trying to cause trouble. The fact that they haven't done anything is a problem. What we SHOULD do, is make a coherent case on Groklaw, and refer the SEC to it. PJ could supervise to make sure it is secure.

    emerge -DU SCO-SEC-case.1.2.3
  • by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:18PM (#8501767)
    Darl wouldn't be carrying a gun, but he would be locked behind bars where he belongs. When you attempt to hijack and subvert the work of thousands of others for your own unjust enrichment through a stream of falshoods and implausable legal proceedings you're a criminal in my book.

    Hopefully jail will be McBride's ultimate fate. Crooks should be locked up and Darl McBride is a brazen example of one in my opinion.
  • This is so over the top!

    First lines of the article:

    Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month.
    Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO 'the most despised company in technology.'


    In January, McBride's unlisted home telephone number was placed on, a pro-Linux Internet site, which led to harassing phone calls on Super Bowl Sunday. Hackers also targeted the company's Web site with the Mydoom virus earlier this year, causing the company to shut down the site.
    McBride said he sometimes carries a gun, declining to specify the type, and travels with armed guards. The gun is licensed, he said. Security officials have told him that convicted felons are behind the death threats, McBride said.

    Lookie! It's the juxtaposition trick! Darl says, "I feel threatened," then mention someone (Linus) saying something threatening. Talk about linux advocates attacking making harassing phone calls, then mention unspecified convicted felons making death threats.

    A classic example of propaganda I've ever seen one...
  • The response is emotional because the SCO threats have no legal basis (until proven in the current court cases), have no technical basis (until source code is actually revealed which to date SCO have not.

    Its really our emotional response to threats. No different from any criminal threatening your hopes, dreams, your work, career or family.

    EV1Servers should have simply waited until the SCO v. IBM was finished the appeals.

    We've been desperately saying this - all we want is facts. Cold hard code with clear attribution and this has not been forthcoming from anyone to date.

    EV1Servers have been tarnished because no-one knows who to trust right yet. For me if Torvalds says he wrote that code then he did and it stays that way until he says "Oh yeah I remember, I copied that from an old Computer or DDJ magazine or found it on a FTP site." or something equally absurd.

  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:20PM (#8501804)
    I think the SEC thinks we are a bunch of miscreants trying to cause trouble.

    I wouldn't doubt that there are some people who have tried to report SCO to the SEC despite not having any true facts that could be used. Such people are just harming any true investigation into SCO by drowning out the actual signals...
  • by SQLz ( 564901 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:21PM (#8501814) Homepage Journal
    Quote From CEO of EV1
    "So we felt like we were doing the right thing for customers, the right thing for ourselves and the right thing for our shareholders. We felt (that paying the licensing fee) put our customers and ourselves in a position where we could concentrate on our business instead of a bunch of lawsuits."

    Its funny he never thought of doing the right thing for Linux. Considering how many Linux machines he has in which he paid $0 for the operating system you would think that there would be some loyalty. Linux probably played a key role in EV1's growth over the years. This guy is just another example of someone who will take take take from our community and never give anything back.

    Man, what a jackass that guy is.

  • Oh the irony.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:22PM (#8501830)
    Last line of the EV1 article:

    "If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected."

    So let me get this straight... they signed a contract with a company whose business model is based on FUD, who licensed their own code under the GPL and now calls the GPL "unconstitutional" and they expect the finer terms of a contract to be strictly adhered to? By SCO?

    If EV1 loses all their customers, it won't come as any great surprise to anyone who has followed the SCO battle. Their CEO should have done his homework so he knew who he was dealing with.
  • by big_groo ( 237634 ) <groovis@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:25PM (#8501866) Homepage
    That's litigious [].

    The fugitive is on the loose. Don't lose your keys.

  • by Egonis ( 155154 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:27PM (#8501889)
    Speaking as a practicing Counsellor, if I were to have a client say "I carry a weapon because my enemies are out to get me", my civic duty within Canada is to report this person to the nearest Health Facility.

    I classify that statement as behaviour within a psychologically disturbed mind, and one which requires neurological re-evaluation.

    Just a thought.
  • by IamGarageGuy 2 ( 687655 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:27PM (#8501895) Journal
    Any time SCO comes up for discussion, I have noticed the subtle jibes at Linux usually by AC's. There is nothing wrong with educated discussion but I have a great fear the the FUD is creeping into /. - beware of anybody that posts AC to this forum. If you are afraid to state at least your /. name, then don't post. I have already put AC's at -6.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:28PM (#8501900)
    ..of all the foolish investers who've sunk their life savings into his company's public shares.

    Which when they tank into penny stocks, will result in death threats from people who really do mean it.
  • by shrubya ( 570356 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:28PM (#8501904) Homepage Journal
    There's a simple explanation: CA bought licenses for UnixWare, and SCO unilaterally tossed a stack of "Linux licenses" into the deal. CA didn't pay for them, because CA didn't even know they were getting them.

    Now SCO is playing it like CA caved in to the extortion, but in reality CA is merely a little stupid (for buying anything from SCO).

  • by IANAAC ( 692242 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:29PM (#8501912)
    wouldn't that be a great way to get SCO off your back?

    Yes, it would.

    It would also be an excellent way to send a lot of their current customers fleeing. People aren't familiar with BSD like they are with Linux (particularly RedHat).

  • PJ Darl (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:31PM (#8501940)
    Darl is so hopelessly outclassed by Pamela Jones.

    And I'm so pleased that one woman with motivation and smarts can so utterly rock SCO.
  • by ryants ( 310088 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:39PM (#8502029)
    We live in the kind of world where...
    USA != world.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:40PM (#8502046)
    Lots of linux geeks have guns. Many of us consider it part of the same power-to-the-people, individual-freedom meme that motivates our love of free software.

    But we're not going to go gunning for Darl, because we're not murderers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:40PM (#8502047)
    Actually, you live in the US... but hey, if every paranoid CEO can carry a gun, I wouldn't wonder...
  • by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:41PM (#8502064) Homepage
    The way I see it, the last thing you want is to destroy the livelyhood and creative output of a bunch of nerds.

    First, we take it personally in ways that other industries who have had attempts to destroy them haven't. Taking the pickaxe away from a coal miner or the torch away from a welder at an auto plant is one thing. Taking the paints away from an artist or the code away from the programmers is another thing.

    Second, there are enough geeks who have varried interests in firepower. There's ESR and his "Geeks with guns". There's all of the crazy flamethrowers, flame cannons, high voltage tesla coils, etc. from the burner contingent.

    Third, we won't be stopped if you take away our weapons. A gas grill and some machine tools can be turned into a variety of interesting weapons.

    Fourth, we have been accumulating this knowlege ever since we found the Anarchist's Cookbook on the local BBS, so restricting further flows of information won't stop us. We have brother geeks in the other engineering fields to draw on as sympathizers. In fact, DeCSS has shown that the more you try to restrict the flow of information, the more folks who may not have cared otherwise now want to help share it.

    Fifth, we understand the system better than some of the other displaced groups. The Detroit auto-workers would take out their agression by buying a Honda and publically smashing it. We do not have political ability, but I have no doubts that the angry nerds of the world will be able to pick the right targets.

    What's preventing this from happening? Well, right now, there's still a promise on the horizon. People remember the last boom-bust cycles, the last time stuff was outsourced and we were still able to find jobs. Our hacker projects have kept us from blowing up at OS/360 and Microsoft and VMS because there *was* something that we could work on. Take that away, and we'll show all of the other groups that have used terror how things are really done.

    Having said that, I think that everybody is currently more interested in Darl being a failed businessman (And indicental picker-up-of-the-soap) than dead. Because, overall, that's just more fun.
  • by kristeh1337 ( 759934 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:42PM (#8502067)
    That was quite the rant. It's like an airbag. You never know when you might need it I'm even sure where to start correcting that other than to point out the markedly different purposes of each item. Calm the hell down dude.
  • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:43PM (#8502079) Homepage
    Actually, I think the EV1 announcement has inadvertantly done SCO *far* more harm than good. The senior execs at SCO must have been thinking the announcement would be taken as a ringing endorsement of SCOsource and lead to further revenue, otherwise why make the announcement? Also, they certainly need a boost for SCOsource - after all, it is supposedly their new cash cow and just $20,000 revenue in the last quarter according to their last financial is hardly a good sign, is it?

    So, we have the gleeful announcement from SCO/EV1 that a seven figure sum has been paid to SCOsource, cushioning the ~10% fall in stock price after somewhat grim financials and announcements of the latest lawsuits. However, we also have the biggest backlash you could possibly imagine; EV1 has kissed goodbye to a few million dollars (a no refund clause is in the contract), lost an unknown amount of custom to its competitors and been tarnished with the same brush as SCO. You'd have to be a complete moron to consider buying a SCOsource license for "protection" and risk having your customers find out now, which leave less funds for the lawyers.

  • by cei ( 107343 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:44PM (#8502089) Homepage Journal
    If they're not a managed hosting service, then why are they implicated at all? Sounds to me like their customers are the linux users and they're nothing more than bandwidth and electricity, if what you're saying is correct. Why would they need to sign an agreement with SCO if that were the case?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:45PM (#8502102)

    Dirty dirty company. They know that this deal with SCO has a good chance of indirectly benefitting them by fucking over their competition. See, here's the deal...

    SCO wants a "big dog" in their portfolio: A high-profile licensee that they can use to scare smaller guys into submission. So they go to EV1 and offer them a really good deal for licenses. And EV1 figures, hey, we're only having to pay pennies on the dollar for these licenses, and it's going to give SCO a lot of ammo for taking out *other* hosting companies...

    So what do they have to lose. They pay off SCO for an amount that really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to their financials, and the SCO guys look more credible, giving them a little more of edge for attacking EV1s competitors. This line of reasoning cannot have escaped the people making this deal, and it wouldn't be suprising if SCO explicitly used this argument to convince EV1 to buy.

    So basically, EV1 rolled over because by being the first to pay they get the best deal and ensure that other Linux-based companies are going to get fucked worse than they are.

    This was an exceptionally greedy and selfish move, and should speak volumes about those in charge of the company. Evil, evil, evil. Shady deals made for the sole reason to screw over as many people in the industry as possible, all for the sake of more power and money.

    Does that sound like a company that *you* want to support?

  • I'm staying with my EV1 accounts. I think the CEO made a smart decision, since he wants to keep his company going, and I don't want to have to pay higher and higher fees to pay for a lawsuit, even if EV1 eventually wins it, since I wouldn't see a penny of it back if SCO loses.

    All EV1 is really saying is that they don't trust judges to make an intelligent decision, and I can't say I blame them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:48PM (#8502149)
    This is what makes Fark different from Slashdot. On Fark this would be deleted; on slashdot, it's modded +5 informative. INFORMATIVE?!? Why do you need this man's home phone number? You jagoffs are always on here crying about PRIVACY THIS, PRIVACY THAT, but you know what... you're all just a bunch of hypocrates.

    you people are teh scum of the earth.
  • by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:54PM (#8502253)
    Darl's a Mormon. There are a lot of similarities betwen the Mormon Church and the Church of Scientology. The big differences are that the mormon church is older, better respected, and has a slightly better grip on reality than the CoS. Oh, and they're less focused on fleecing the flock than the elronners.
  • by CptNerd ( 455084 ) <> on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:55PM (#8502259) Homepage

    They obviously felt they would lose too much in lawyers fees defending themselves in a suit that wouldn't be resolved for years or even decades.

    I don't know what possessed them to sign up for the SCO licensing and fund the destruction of a software product they built their business on.

    You've never been the target of a major lawsuit, apparently.

  • by SphericalCrusher ( 739397 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:57PM (#8502284) Journal
    If SCO goes down, Bubba's going to have a lot of bitches.
  • But who gets UNIX? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isn't my name ( 514234 ) <slash AT threenorth DOT com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:58PM (#8502311)
    That is, if SCO goes under with debt, then Canopy should have to open their coffers for IBM/RedHat/

    I expect that is correct, if IBM can pierce the veil.

    The more interesting question is if SCO declares bankruptcy, who gets whatever IP rights they do have. (And realize that based on the Novell contracts, I don't really think they have any.) BayStar and the Royal Bank of Canada both get priority in liquidation--priority over and above IBM with a court judgement, I would imagine.

    Do they get it? What if the MS connection alleged in the Anderer memo is proven? Then, do they get it? Does Canopy get it because they have a loan to SCO that is secured and, I believe, their lease to SCO is also secured.

    This is an important question.
  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:58PM (#8502318) Homepage Journal
    USA != world

    Okay, twit. I'll bite.

    We live in a world where a pregnant woman can be convicted of a stoning offense, just because the man decided not to marry her. Nigeria.

    We live in a world where people participating in an anti-tyranny march to the capitol will be shot from rooftops by the minions of a guerilla warlord who will "protect" the country from violence. Haiti.

    We live in a world where a well-respected and popular female government official is slain by knife while shopping in a department store. Sweden.

    We live in a world where bloodshed happens for unjust and unjustifiable reasons... in every country there is, and every country there ever was. Even your country.

  • by NerveGas ( 168686 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:00PM (#8502349)

    "Linux has our technology."

    "We can't show proof, it would harm us."

    "My enemies are out to kill me."

    I've met some people like that in my life. All of them suffering from very severe psychological problems. Old McBride is sounding more and more like he fits into that particular segment of society.

    (Of course, living in Provo is, in and of itself, a warning sign.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:03PM (#8502390)
    Actually, those of us who do own assault rifles don't claim to buy them for hunting purposes. We reject the notion that hunting is the only valid reason to own a firearm.

    In fact, the "sporting purpose" concept originated in a Nazi gun-control law from the 1930's (details at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership []).

  • by GeoVizer ( 724140 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:03PM (#8502400)
    I just read all the AC posts for this story, and I can't see any FUD. Sorry.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:04PM (#8502408)
    As a fellow BYU graduate and former Mormon missionary, I can say that I hang my head in deep shame everytime I see someone connect the mess of a person that is Darl McBride to either activity -- not because I'm ashamed of either activity, but because somehow, we let an individual "graduate" from both institutions that has become the unfathomable evil that is Darl McBride.

    Let me also just say that when I served as a missionary for the Church in South America, it was one of the hardest things I'd ever done, because it is a work that can only be done selflessly. Anyone who embarks on it with self-interest in mind is destined to fail miserably until they realize that it isn't about them, it's about trying to help people and about forgetting yourself in that work.

    Of course, Darl has had more than 20 years to forget all the lessons he learned (if he ever did learn them) while a missionary, and he must have worked quite hard at doing so to get to the point at which he now lives.

  • by CrankyFool ( 680025 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:05PM (#8502438)
    Who marked this guy insightful?

    You want to win in the business arena, make the best product and convince people to use it. Don't look at it as a holy jihad, because the business people sure as hell won't. He got the product for free? That's great for him. There's no EULA that goes with Linux that requires your loyalty or support. There's no GPL clause that says you must declare your fealty to the Open Source Movement. And that's how it should be, because Linux, if it wins, should win on its merits, not on the religious zeal of its converts.

    The only 'right thing for Linux' that business users should be required to do -- or castigated for not doing -- is abiding by the GPL. That's "abiding," as in "not breaking," not "not supporting anyone who doubts the veracity of the GPL."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:08PM (#8502484)
    it is a work that can only be done selflessly. Anyone who embarks on it with self-interest in mind is destined to fail miserably until they realize that it isn't about them, it's about trying to help people and about forgetting yourself in that work.

    Sounds just a little bit like developing Free Software, don't it? Just a little?

  • by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:19PM (#8502620)
    Maybe someone needs to have a chat with his Bishop.

    Maybe he might get a clue after being excommunicated. (Though I doubt it.)
  • Re:SCO: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <> on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:19PM (#8502628) Homepage Journal
    That's funny on the one hand, but let's not take it too seriously. A drop in SCO's market cap is no more a vindication of our position than the skyrocketting market cap was a vindication of SCO's. The market does what the market will, and we should take it all with a grain of salt.
  • by danila ( 69889 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:21PM (#8502652) Homepage
    Okay, twit. I'll bite back.

    Acts of unmotivated violence prevalent across society is one thing. Extremely rare and unfortunate incidents are another. The killing of the Swedish PM by a menthally ill person with a long clinical history proved exactly the point the parent was making, that such violence is extremely uncommon in Sweden. Ditto for Finland that was shocked by the mall bombing in Helsinki last year.

    The USA is not the safest place in the world, whatever metric you choose. Far from the safest, actually...
  • Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:26PM (#8502708)
    The question is whether IBM can get a fair trial in Utah. I used to live in Utah, and there was very strong anti-Mormon discrimination. I wouldn't want to be an out-of-state non-Mormon facing a Mormon graduate from BYU in a Utah court, no matter how strong my case. We'll see what happens. IBM has a winning case, but it may lose because of this alone. If I were IBM, I'd push for federal court.

    In terms of tainting the church's image, go to at some point, and read up some of the things the church is allegedly doing or has done. This is worth a thousand SCOs, even if the church were single-handedly responsible for SCO. I've never seen the Mormon church address any of these allegations, so I am inclined to believe at least a significant number are true (probably virtually all are. But even if none were, sites like this, unaddressed, lower LDS' reputation far more than an arbitrary number of SCOs. If you point them out to Mormon missionaries, they will not respond -- apparently something about some prohibition on reading non-Mormon texts and articles while on mission.
  • No Darl. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Znork ( 31774 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#8502810)
    "He compares his fight with Linux supporters to the time when his family caught thieves stealing cattle from their ranch in Utah."

    From Darls current actions I suspect that what actually happened was that Darls family figured out they couldnt live on the one poor mishandled cow they had, so they sued the neighbours, claiming the neighbours cattle were actually theirs (because their cow had one dark night given birth to several thousand fully grown cattle who had then snuck into the neighbours ranch), and then went on to threatening with suing anyone eating beef unless they paid Darls family.

    At least, then it would be a more comparable story.
  • by redelm ( 54142 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:38PM (#8502883) Homepage
    I thought about this before cancelling my EV1 account. Yes, Bob Marsh may have made a justifiable cash-risk-based business decision. Pay 5 k$/yr or risk 50+ servers in a licence suit.

    But I don't care. I expect the people I support through my business to act ethically and support my interests when they don't conflict with theirs. SCO is playing lawsuit roulette, betting on 000. Despicable. And insupportable irrespective of financial calcs.

  • More BS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:52PM (#8503046)
    Security officials have told him that convicted felons are behind the death threats, McBride said. So, if he knows the identities of the people threatening him, why doesn't he a) get a restraining order against these people or b) have them arrested. Or could it be this unsubstantiated claim is yet another part of their FUD campaign? How could you know that they are convicted felons without knowing who they are?
  • by El ( 94934 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:58PM (#8503108)
    Well no, he's not taking money from people at gun point. However, theatening to sue people unless they fork over $699 per server does qualify as extortion in most states.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:41PM (#8503475)
    Plus the the fact that their founder Joseph Smith was a convicted fraudster (ever hear of a $3 note?) and died in a wild-west style shoot-out with the law. Hmmm... in most peoples definition, Martyrs don't shoot back.

    All but one of the so-called witnesses in the front of the Book of Mormon who "witnessed" the gold plates of Joseph Smith, later denied seeing these.

    The polygamy and racism history is hard to deny also. So would you call this "respected"?
  • by tommy_teardrop ( 228273 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:08PM (#8503712)
    Talk about Bullshit statistics...

    I'm willing to bet that you have a similar murder rate (statistically)

    UK: 1.13e-4 % of the population murdered by gun.
    US: 3.79e-3 % of the population murdered by gun.

    i.e. You are 33.5 times more likely to be murdered by a gun in the US than you are in the UK (if you believe the quoted statistics).

    Finding actual murder rates is hard, numbers for the states varies between about 5.5 to 8, and the UK is quoted as about 1-2. Also, it seems they count murder rates in a different way, the UK counting murder convictions, and the US counting murder arrests. Still, using typical figures:

    6.8e-3 % of the population murdered
    1.5e-3 % of the population murdered

    You are 4.5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.

    As a side note, it does happen. The son of a friend was shot dead last year, so I'm well aware of the meaning behind these statistics. But - basically, you are more likely to be killed in the US, and *much* more likely to be shot.

    More important from my point of view is statistics on people accidentally killed by guns each year in the US and the UK...
    In the US, a conservative estimate is ~1500 people are killed by guns accidentally each year. I'm willing to bet thats at least 1495 more than the UK.
  • by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:20PM (#8503846)
    No, it's most likely true. I know companies engage in astroturfing regularly - I've seen it happen before. I don't specifically know that SCO does, but it's not unreasonable to assume the high profile nature of their legal cases and PR campaign that they would. As for Microsoft, they have engaged in astroturfing many times - probably not organized at a company-wide level, perhaps sponsored by certain executives who think they are doing their job. In any massive company like Microsoft you get the whole range of talent, skill and ethics in your managers.

    Also, note how you lose credibility by posting your denial as AC in a thread about AC astroturfing? Next time, log in.

  • by bm_luethke ( 253362 ) <luethkeb@comca[ ]net ['st.' in gap]> on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:25PM (#8503895)
    I tend to agree with legalising marijuana but quoting that stuff isn't helping your cause.

    First, few are going to believe it. Do you honestly believe that aspirin would kill more people than marijuana if the number using it was the same? You can't compare straight numbers if one has 500 times the amount of people using it. Those that go "hell yea" to it are believers anyway.

    Second, if any one digs into the quoted numbers, you will find that the study was in 1987-1988 and dealt with *medical* marijuana with the others collated from *non-medical* abuse.

    This is like picking the pot-heads that can't string a coherent sentance together and wear dyed twine clothes to promote it's usage - not gonna get sympathy.

    In short, pick statistics and people that will not get easily torn up.
  • by stor ( 146442 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:37PM (#8504023)
    Who wants to kill Darl?

    Good question.

    Many people here have answered "geeks do... well, we might!" but I seriously doubt that. Most geeks I know don't want to hurt anyone.

    Darl has a history of fucking over companies. I personally believe he's been carrying a gun for a while now.

  • by crucini ( 98210 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:43PM (#8504070)
    A person who has sought out the public limelight thereby sacrifices some expectation of privacy. This is a principle well understood by society and by the courts. Mr. McBride has worked very hard to remain in the limelight.
    Also, society sanctions those who break rules. While Mr. McBride hasn't been legally convicted of wrongdoing, he is visibly seeking to take wrongfully from others in order to enrich himself.
    Inevitably, he suffers societal backlash, ranging from the Utah reporters who no longer give him positive press to the angry teenagers calling him up at home.
    An individual's rights can be narrowed by society if he commits wrongdoing. This narrowing can occur formally, as in criminal sentencing, or informally, as in the shunning and hostile attention directed at a pariah.
    It's unfortunate that your comment was modded down merely for disagreeing with the mainstream belief here.
  • by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @08:10PM (#8504345) Journal
    You yankees have GOT to stop doing that!

    "The US is unsafe!!!" they say, and how do you respond? "We're safer than rwanda! We're even safer than communist china or the former soviet union! We're *EVEN* safer than post-war Iraq! We r0xx0rz!!!!!111one"

    If you're going to compare, compare at least to a country that isn't in the middle of a warzone or in the midst of anarchy and social turmoil, eh? You *ARE* part of the first world, you know!
  • Re:Umm, hello??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lew Payne ( 592648 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @08:20PM (#8504428) Journal
    I beg to differ. You make it sound as if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has opened up its archives to everyone. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Church has opened up only those sections of its archives which are not materially damaging to it. Other archives, such as the private letters between early Mormon leaders, are kept confidential. Only a handful of people have seen them, that viewing being mostly limited to Official Church Historians. Your statement also leads one to believe that the Church has produced documents which explain everything that goes on inside the temples. Again, this is false and misleading. The Church has revealed only an edited version of what goes on inside the temple... editing history in the process. These days, when discussing the origins of the ceremonies, it fails to reveal things such as Blood Atonement, the influence of the Masons, and selectively deletes portions of history which would otherwise be an embarrassment to the Church and negatively impact its recruitment efforts. You also state that the Mormons have never had a history of being racists. I suggest you do a bit of basic research, and read History of the Church. You will find that until 1978, blacks were not allowed to hold any office in the Church, and were specifically thought of as inferior... this coming directly from Church apostles... who "speak on behalf of God": "Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church Your final point, regarding the "polygamy crap," is also without basis. The practice of polygamy, err... polyandry (multiple wives, who also have multiple husbands) was introduced by Joseph Smith in a Revelation from God. Tell me... who is the founder of "your" Church... since you say they are not the same Church? If it's Joseph Smith, then we are correct in stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) has its roots in polyandry/polygamy, and that the founder (prophet, seer and revelator) of this Church, who "restored" this only true Church, is the original prophet in which the current Church is based.
  • by ArcticCelt ( 660351 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @09:55PM (#8505078)
    It could be a good idea to make a public black list of SCO license buyers!
  • by Z4rd0Z ( 211373 ) <joseph at mammalia dot net> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:18AM (#8507296) Homepage
    Nah, I've been around schizophrenics, and while there are different levels of severity, I don't think even a mild schizophrenic would be as coherent as Darl, and I mean that without sarcasm. His FUD, while hard to believe sometimes, is too calculated to be the rants of a schizophrenic. He could have some other disorder like manic depression, and I do agree he is antisocial.

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next door. -- Martin Amis, _Money_