|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
| I'd bet they had someone take a close look at the LKP and maybe other
modules,
and found something. And I'm much more
inclined to believe it when IBM
says they've found something than when
SCO does.
This sounds great. It's
also looking like the GPL will be seriously
tested in court, assuming of course
The SCO Group holds out until then. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Awesome - Authored by: joebeone on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- Awesome - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Bankruptcy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 10:48 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
Just my imagination, or does this read a lot like the first (unamended) suit SCO
hit IBM with?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
Its nice work and plenty enough to nail SCO but I'm still hoping someone files
criminal charges against McBride, Stowell and Sontag.
When SCO loses, they may be able to hide behind the corporate entity and walk
away scott-free.
When they personally lose as civilians, they go to jail.
For this to be resolved properly, I think they need prison time. The RICO act
and/or other laws must be relevant to the crimes personally committed by these
individuals.
They cannot be allowed to walk away. Destroying the fortress means diddly squat
unless you get the dictator and his lackeys holed up in it too.
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
| "Indeed, SCO incorporated certain code licensed pursuant to the GPL into its
proprietary Unix products."
What do they mean with that?
Either the
fact that SCO happily bundles and distributes GPL licensed software along with
their UnixWare offering. Or do they have some proof of actual copied GPL
sourcecode in SCO's closed-source products.
SCO cannot deny this statement
as they did widely announce that they are including GPL software in their
upcoming release of UnixWare. But admitting might make them look guilty wrt.
copyright infringement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Dick Gingras on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 02:07 AM EDT |
The major differences between the first IBM countersuit filing and this latest
Amended Counterclaims can be pretty easily
summarized:
Background
1. There's an improved
differentiation and history of Unix and Linux.
2. A section on Open Source
software and the GPL has been added.
3. References to Sequent and Dynix
have been added.
4. A new section on copyright infringements was inserted
in front of the existing section on patent infringements.
5. The
accusations made by SCO at SCO Forum have been
added.
Counterclaims
Added:
Seventh Counterclaim:
Promissory Estoppel
Eighth Counterclaim: Copyright
Infringement
Thirteenth Counterclaim: Declaratory
Judgement
---
SCO Caro Mortuum Erit! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 02:26 AM EDT |
With respect to IBM's Bob S, and PJ, I think both do not realize that HP's
position is actually a lot closer to IBM's than either Bob or PJ realize.
HP is NOT saying that their indemnification does not extend to modified versions
of Linux. HP is also NOT saying, that they don't want people to modify Linux:
HP responded with a statement defending its indemnification offer.
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5082910.html
"The vast majority of HP Linux customers do not modify the Linux source
code," according to the statement. "Contrary to IBM's comment, they
are of course free to continue to view the source code. In the event of
modification to the code, HP would work with those customers on a case-by-case
basis. IBM seems to be trying to drive a wedge where none exists. HP is driving
Linux in the real world by standing by its customers."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: shaun on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
OT I know but there are some real powerful comments made about MS. It's a good
read and well worth a look. Also gives you an idea of who maybe the puppet
master.
--Shaun
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&ncid=620&e=1&
;u=/nf/20030926/bs_nf/22375[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Drew on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
Given the comments here and out there, I wonder who pays for this at IBM: Law or
Marketing? :)
Not that I mind either way as long as SCO goes down *HARD*.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who pays for it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 07:10 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: nabet on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
| Take a look at this (particularly the highlighted part).
118. As a result of
its reliance upon SCO's promises, IBM has sustained injuries and is entitled to
an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition to an
award of damages, IBM is entitled to declarative and injunctive
relief, including by not limited to a declaration that SCO is not entitled to
assert proprietary rights with respect to products distributed by SCO under the
GPL except upon the terms set out by the GPL.
Am I correct in assuming that
IBM is after a preliminary injunction? If so, this is very good news indeed: it
is high time that SCO be compelled to stop spreading their FUD in press release
after press release. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 07:37 AM EDT |
I like 55. Regarding the letter sent to the 1500 companies. Which they state
"SCO intend to aggresivvely protect and enforce these rights"
against not only the companies involved with "the linux development
process"...
Kind of makes there Red Hat defense seem weak since they've told 1500 companies
they will be persuing them....
An 64. Does seem pretty damning.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
| Political and moral intent are often intertwined. When a person takes a presonal
moral stance and works to get it accepted by the larger world, then the moral
stance becomes politicized. The crusade is political, the stance underlying it
may (or may not be) moral. In this case, I agree that his underying stance
is a moral one. I also agree that the crusade is
political. ---
Powerful, committed communication. Transformation touching
the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: joebeone on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
| My favorite is still 38.: "Due to the open-source nature of many of SCO's
software products and the licenses under which it has developed and distributed
them, SCO's collection of trademarks constitutes its most important
intellectuall property." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skidrash on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
as shareholders are.
Theoretically shareholders have no say in managing a company thus cannot be held
legally liable for anything the company does.
Managers DO manage the company and if anything illegal is done they're not
protected by their job title in any way whatsoever.
(the paying of legal bills is a small wrinkle, but that's money provided by
the company, not immunity of any sort provided by regulators.)
Some people have been thinking 'piercing the veil' is necessary to get at Darl
and Stowell and Sontag.
NOT SO. If they've committed crimes all that's needed is that they be
charged.
Piercing the veil only applies to shareholders, and piercing the veil can only
be done if it can be shown the shareholders had too much influence over
management, or if the shareholders purposely set up the corporation to shield
themselves from fraud charges.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: minkwe on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
In paragraph 59, there appears a link between SCO and Deutsche Bank. I wonder
if this has a link has anything to do with recent negative statements from
Deutsche Bank that caused a downturn of RedHat stock at the moment that RedHat
stock was climbing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
I am wondering if some sharp cookie at SCO has been gathering evidence to
protect himself if this whole house of cards falls. If I were Darl and friends,
I wouldn't discuss much via e-mail- that has gotten MS employees in deep
doo-doo. So, maybe a sharp player has bugged offices or meeting rooms?
Recorded incriminating conversations between himself and other SCO execs? This
is pretty easy these days, and much of the legality of such recordings is pretty
vague. If you record telephone conversations, yeah, everyone knows the score
there, but not if you turn yourself into a walking recording studio <G>.
And look at all of the microphones companies give away with new
computers.....The soap opera might get more intense as the rats start scrambling
for cover.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kpl on Saturday, September 27 2003 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
Bet the SCO P.R. dept. is working overtime this w/e
It will be interesting
to see what kind of press release
comes out on Monday or
Tuesday
---
--------------------
mv sco /dev/null
-------------------- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO's next PR? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 28 2003 @ 12:07 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Bob Carpenter on Monday, September 29 2003 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
More b.s. from SCO.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030929/lam058_1.html
Their must be something in the water in Lindon that causes all this verbal
diarrhea.
rmc
---
rmc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
