|
|
| Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version |
 |
|
Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:41 AM EST
|
Well, well. First SCO's Blake Stowell told us that the hearing originally scheduled for the 23rd had been postponed at IBM's request. Now he says it was mutually agreed upon. However, Bob Mims of the Salt Lake Tribune quotes IBM's Mike Darcy, who tells us what happened: "'SCO failed to comply with the court's order to fully answer IBM's interrogatories and requirements for documents by [the deadline],' Darcy said. 'SCO has now agreed to provide additional responses, so the court has agreed to postpone the hearing to give SCO additional time to comply.'" Mims seems unable to tell who is being truthful in this picture, but he surely sees that one or the other isn't telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What Mims and any other puzzleds can do is simply this: wait for the court hearing on February 6 and buy a transcript of the proceeding. I'll bet you'll find out who told the truth today. Or just read Groklaw. We'll have a transcript available hot off the presses, as well as eyewitness accounts. If you can't wait that long, I suggest you read SCO's Notice of Compliance, which acknowledged SCO had not complied fully, and the Declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's attorney, where he explains why did they didn't comply fully (too much Christmas). Which story matches those established facts? PR is one thing; lying is another. Does it not make logical sense, given those facts, that IBM told the judge that they were not satisfied with what SCO provided, SCO then said it would turn over more rather than have bad things happen, begged for more time, and got a 2-week reprieve? As you recall, Tibbitts said they lost about 10 days because of the Christmas holidays, so giving them 2 weeks should bring them up to speed, no excuses. I know. But Judge Wells has to get to know SCOfolk as well as we do. And so do some reporters. It's an educational process, and Groklaw is happy to provide the facts to enable others to get their PhD in SCO, just as we already have.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
| Interesting quote from Sims article, second half of
second sentence. Also
interesting to note that he checked
with the court.
"Citing judicial
ethics, Wells declined to clarify the
dispute. Her docket entry regarding the
postponement
simply notes the setting of a new hearing -- although
the
bulk of the motions to be considered involve time
extensions sought by SCO to
reply to various IBM
information demands . "
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john82a on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:24 AM EST |
What is Mike Darcy's relationship with IBM? The article doesn't say whether he
is an IR guy or other spokesperson. Fascinating, as always, to see that SCO
cannot stick to a consistent account. Thanks PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST |
You know, I find it amazing that the SCO executives find themselves unable to
comply with the court orders because of the christmas holidays, but find enough
time to sell approximately $780k worth of shares during the same time.
Strange...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:29 AM EST |
"'SCO failed to comply with the court's order to fully answer IBM's
interrogatories and requirements for documents by [the deadline],' Darcy
said."
WOW, why did i not see that coming?
[sarcasim]
and i thought that IBM and Novell needed more time to conspire about new ways
to undermine the freeworld.
[/sarcasim]
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST |
Given that Groklaw is such a great resource on matters
legal, couldn't we have a Grokfinance to have a discussion
on financial issues (stock, stock prices, financial reports,
Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures, etc), relating
to, but not necessarily restricted to, the financial side
of these scams ?
Thanks in advance,
Toon Moene (GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:34 AM EST |
This is enjoyable to watch. IBM is playing a calculated strategy game, get the
motion to compel, demand more than SCO is willing to give, SCO is late and now
is looking VERY bad to the judge. I smell a "check" coming if not a
"check-mate" coming from IBM as soon as they have all the pieces in
place. SCO is playing checkers, and trying to get ahead my making more
"PR" moves than actual attacks/defenses. SCO is going to take some
licks before they learn to plan.
-jboss
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST |
We already knew pretty much why IBM asked for the postponement and this simply
conforms it.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST |
Very, very interesting news.
In defence the judge, it may be an anti-appeal measure (I've read some theories
about this before). Throwing the case out early may give SCO ammo in appeals.
Like Microsoft, SCO could claim that the judge was biased. In giving SCO leeway,
the judge proves that she makes a best-faith effort to give SCO its day in
court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST |
Q: What does a law suit look like after an explosive decompression?
A: Just like SCO's.
There's a moment when things are beginning to come unraveled just before it
spins completely out of control, there's just enough time, typically, to
realize what happens next....
I bet the bells are going off in Tid-Bit's head right now. (Darl of course is
still trippin' on what ever it is he abuses, so he may not even know when it's
all over.)
TFL
Caught not following the judge's instructions. Whoops! That might have a long
term impact on the trial. Maybe *that* should get mentioned in an SEC Filing,
too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cassandra on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:45 AM EST |
I think I remember that the Judge said that she would hold SCO to that 30 day
deadline. And now she has allowed 2 more weeks for them to provide IBM with
additional answers. In which case I'm hoping that there was some kind of legal
'price tag' attached to this extension, because 'Christmas getting in the
way' is really no excuse. (Yes, I know that she was prepared to be flexible
about the date of the hearing, but she has effectively provided SCO with more
time to comply anyway.)
One other thought - could the protective order on this case be used to prevent
members of the public from attending the hearing on 6th February?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST |
"Groklaw is happy to provide the facts to enable others to get their PhD
in SCO, just as we already have."
priceless comment PJjust one addition it should have been SCOSPEAK
hehehehehe
on a moer serious note this precludes sco from being able to say they werent
given the opportunity to provide and made aware of what they needed to
provide.they are being given every chance to continue to sink themselves
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST |
| I'd say Mr. Mims got it just right.
He's the first mainstream reporter I
recall having read who pointed out the down-side for SCO, based on the court
case.
The outcome of the rescheduled hearing could determine the
fate of the case. Proving that Unix code was illegally imported into Linux is at
the heart of the case.
If Wells finds sufficient evidence to support
SCO's claims, a trial is expected in spring 2005. If she rules for IBM, SCO's
lawsuit would be derailed and its recently launched, potentially lucrative
global campaign to sell licenses to corporate Linux users also could
flop.
Yes.... An understatement, I think, but I'll take it.
And
this bit:
SCO contends one of its predecessor companies bought all
rights to Unix from Novell nine years ago. Since late last year, Novell has
argued it retains copyrights to the operating system
As in: SCO
Group isn't the comapny that actually bought the rights, whatever they may have
been, from Novell.
Hooray! The press is getting
it!
TFL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Kudos to Mims, TSLT - Authored by: Captain on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST
- CBROnline have got it - Authored by: SkArcher on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:17 AM EST
- Kudos to Mims, TSLT - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST
- Mims almost == Enderle - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:59 AM EST
- I don't get this ? - Authored by: The_Pirate on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:48 PM EST
- They asked - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 04:41 PM EST
- They asked - Authored by: vonbrand on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST
- They asked - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST
- IP sold through the APA - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 01:19 AM EST
- I responded to Mims's excellent article - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:22 PM EST
- Kudos to Mims, TSLT - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 01:10 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST |
...Groklaw is happy to provide the facts to enable others to get their PhD in
SCO...
As I understand college degree terminology, a BS means
you've grasped the basics,
a Masters means you've attained mastery of the
subject, and a PhD means you've
made original contribution(s) to the
field.
Do we really want to get PhD's in SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:17 AM EST |
The best part is Blake Stowell is killing them.
Do you think IBM will not make the court aware of his statements?
This will hopefully make it blatantly obvious that SCO is gaming the courts
orders.
Here is another link
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=artic
le&sid=12397
SCO, which was initially ordered by a federal judge to produce the evidence by
Jan.23, failed to fully comply with the court order, said Mike Darcy, IBM's
spokesman. "SCO failed to comply with the court's order to fully answer
IBM's interrogatories and requests for documents by Jan. 23. SCO has now agreed
to provide additional responses, so the court has agreed to postpone the hearing
until Feb. 6 to give SCO additional time to reply," said Mike Darcy, IBM
spokesman.
Blake Stowell, SCO's spokesman, declined to comment on reasons for the
postponement of the court hearing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST |
SCO is never consistent. I personally think their public statements are much
more coherent after they've been fed into a babelfish translator. Consider, for
example, this snippet from Darl's letter to Congress:
"The source of this controversy is the rapid spread of a form of software
called "Open Source software." The most widely used Open Source
product is a software environment called Linux. Open Source Linux software is
developed and enhanced by a loose, worldwide group of volunteers usually called
"the Open Source community." Through the work of this community of
volunteers, lately abetted by the efforts of several major computing companies,
Linux software has become a popular way to run computer server systems, Web
sites, networks and many applications."
Babelized, it makes much more sense:
"The source of this polemik is the fast spreading of a kind of "open
pouring often commodity, those by software was called." The open product
is the strongest common by source a software environment with the designation
Linux. The open software of Linux of the source becomes usual by a loose and
world-wide group of philanthropists that cohabitate "the open source
community." Developed, mentioned and increased by the work by this
community of the philanthropists that cohabitate are encouraged by the efforts
of several important computation companies software of Linux became a kind of
people, by the systems of the computer host, by the places of Web of running
from the nets, and many applications to."
Much clearer, isn't it?
Fruity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST |
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, whose company seeks up to $50 billion
in damages from Big Blue over alleged incorporation of proprietary Unix code
into the latest versions of Linux, contends the postponement to Feb. 6 "was
mutually agreed upon by IBM and SCO."
what's with the 50
billion? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dcs on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:04 AM EST |
"Mon" meaning "gate", the "Rasho" gate,
whatever "rasho" means. :-)
---
Daniel C. Sobral
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:37 AM EST |
OSS is so bad for the economy, security, free enterprise (amazing
"free" is in free enterprise) and freedom in general. We should shut
down the internet. Since it was created from and predominantly run by OSS it's
gotta be evil. Removing the OSS Apache web server would eliminate most of the
web site on the internet any how, including the majority of Democratic candidate
web pages. Just think of all of the other benefits:
1 - No more spam from all of those OSS base email programs (no other email for
that matter)
2 - Significantly reduce the number of M$ features base viruses which are
transmitted through the internet
3 - Cut software and multimedia piracy to nil. As we all know hacker/piracy
tools are developed and distributed with source code like OSS. No internet no
easy way to transport pirated goods.
4 - Greatly reduce the amount of indecent material the populous is exposed to.
Everybody knows that's what the internet was invented for.
Ow! OW! The other half of my brain just woke and is kicking some since into the
rest of my cranium. Sorry for the mindless dribble.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:51 AM EST |
I assume that the declaration of Ryan E. Tibbitts is a affidavit. Are there any
rules for affidavits? This one seems pretty lousy to my.
He swore that ‘he has been informed by SCO's engineers and consultants’. I
believe that. But the engineers and consultants could have been lying to
Tibbitts.
Shouldn't the engineers and consultants have written an affidavit about their
findings?
That is way I'm wondering if there are any rules about affidavits that would
have forced this.
h@ns
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST |
When Caldera was porting Unix elements to Linux, in or out of Project Monterey,
did they ever consult Novell about doing so? Did they ask permission or did
they even mention to Novell what they were doing? Were there any contracts in
place? It might show that Caldera understood Novell held copy-rights to the
source code.
And if not, did Novell ever object or react in any way? And if they didn't,
why?
I'm not sure if this was ever covered, just interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST |
| Definitely that's Piled Higher and Deeper!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PhD in SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST
- There is this website - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST
- PhD in SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST |
If its past behavior is any guide, the SCO Group's corporate relationship with
the truth was episodic at best and just as reliable as a high school dropout's
attendance record, and its corporate grasp of reality tended to be just as
precarious. Only damn fools, and I will be charitable and refrain from naming
any names, would ally themselves with the SCO Group.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:33 PM EST |
Suppose SCO would gather 'truckloads' of paper work and offer that as proof,
than IBM would need months to study and organize those files in order to come up
with a conclusion.
You think that SCO might set up such a stall-tactic , and more important would a
judge allow that to happen?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST |
Well, if you're a stickler for the details as a paralegal should be, it's
necessary to point out that the journalists name is Bob Mims...not Sims.
Small point, but an article critical of accuracy should itself be accurate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST |
SuSE, IBM Get New Security Certifications
Enterprise Linux I.T., United States - 22 Jan 2004
====================================================
While the focus and publicity remains around Windows, Linux is becoming much
more of a target to virus writers," says Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio.
...
rest,
http://tinyurl.com/3ckps[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sbungay on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST |
I wonder if Judge Wells gave them a good old-fashioned tounge-lashing (I
certainly hope so). Weren't they supposed to file an affidavit with the court
if they thought they would be unable to meet the all requirements of the
discovery within the alotted time? Did they file such an affidavit? If not then
perhaps Judge Wells is letting it slide, playing out enough rope so that they
will more eaisly hang themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
IBM is playing this very smart.
They are basically helping reel out the rope for SCO to hang themselves.
"Why your honor, as you can see we have been exteremely cooperative with
SCO. We "graciously" agreed to allow them more time to provide
substance to their allegations. Unfortunately they have been unable too.
Therefore we request immediate dismissal with prejduice".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
This response to Mims's Salt Lake Tribune is almost ready to send. I'll send
it after adding a link to this post and my address.
Note: I could not find a link in a Groklaw story to the transcript that
contained the "few days" quote in item 5. Can someone supply a
link? If not, we need a story that pins down what the transcript says.
---------------------------------------------------
IBM said that the reason that the SCO vs IBM hearing was postponed to February 6
was that SCO did not comply with the court order and the court gave them an
additional two weeks to comply. SCO said otherwise.
The following quotes from SCO and court records support IBM:
1. DECLARATION OF RYAN E. TIBBITTS See
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040114194241382
"10. In light of the traditional holiday hiatus from work, and the
unavailability of some of those directors during the holidays, I undertook the
best reasonable efforts to gather information responsive to IBM's requests from
SCO's outside directors prior to this Court's deadline of January 12, 2004.
11. All of the information has been gathered and is currently being processed
for the remaining individuals. "
Note that Tibbetts does not mention copyright.
2. Stowell's 1/13 statement. See
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,108
01,89043,00.html
"Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations, Stowell
said."
3. The Dec 12 court order. See
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031213004518888
The Court, finding good cause shown, GRANTS IBM's First and Second Motions to
Compel Discovery.
In accordance with the Court's order Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant the SCO
Group, Inc. (SCO) is hereby ORDERED:
1. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos.1-9 as stated in IBM's
First Set of Interrogatories.
2. To respond fully and in detail to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 as stated in
IBM's Second Set of Interrogatories.
4. IBM's interrogatory 12, and SCO's objections
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031129053244861
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source
code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel,
any Linux operating sytem and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has
rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to
whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
RESPONSE TO INTEROGATORY NO 12:
In addition to the General Objections, SCO notes that it has not received
responsive discovery from IBM that would allow it to fully answer this question
because part of this information is peculiary within the knowledge of IBM. In
addition, SCO objects to this question as overly broad and unduly burdensome,
and on the basis that is seeks information neither relevant nor calculated to
reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as it requests
the indentity of source code and other material in Linux contributed to Linux by
parties other than IBM or Sequent. Subject to and without waiving these
objections, as it pertains to SCO's rights involving IBM's contributions, SCO
incorporates its answers to its revised and supplemental answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2.
5. SCO's court statements on December 5
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~pdbaylie/doc88t.txt
MR. MCBRIDE: ... I will proffer to
20 the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that
21 has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within
22 the coming few days or no less than a week.
Enough. I conclude:
A. that SCO claims that IBM contributed SCO-owned copyrighted code code to
Linux, and defied the court order to specify the code in Linux that SCO claims
it has rights to.
B. Instead of citing SCO for contempt of court, the judge gave them another
chance to comply.
C. SCO lied about the reason for the delay, and IBM told the truth.
Please edit and publish this letter. I have also posted it to Groklaw,
(see link), but Groklaw is not covered by Google News, so you could still scoop
the media that are covered.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:23 PM EST |
http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov
Here's the text of my email, all copyrights granted....
Re: SCO vs IBM, Novell, et. al. (or how open source software will mean the end
of civilization....)
If you have received an open letter from Darl McBride of the SCO Group, I hope
that you recognized it be pure misinformation and propaganda, to be polite and
not call it outright lies. If you are unaware of the situation, your best
starting point would be at www.groklaw.net which will provide you directly with
the up to the minute information and comprehensive history of this travesty. I
trust that you will adequately research this for your own understanding, and
subsequently show leadership by counseling your colleagues to lend no credence
to the attempted fraud that this litigious company is perpetrating with a bold
audacity. If you find yourself taken in with their position, and choose to be
ignorant of the absurdity of their inconsistent argument, I will be deeply
disappointed in your ability to adequately represent me, and the country, and
will show you my appreciation as such, on next election day. I am most
interested on your opinions regarding this. If you would like to reply with
specificity, I am quite interested in, and willing to consider your position on
this subject. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scott_R on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:24 PM EST |
I know this has probably been done to death, but I'm confused. I thought the
purpose of discovery was where the plaintiff, with reasonable evidence of
wrongdoing, was allowed to look deeper for other offenses against them, or for
more information to support their case.
When/how did it turn into a fishing exhibition, when all someone has to do is
say, "I think they might possibly, maybe be doing something wrong, but I
really can't prove it until I know everything they've done during the course
of their lifetime"? With this kind of thinking, SCO and others could tie
the court up for decades, with little more than a "guess".
Perhaps this is the judge's way of letting SCO hang themself, but it might have
another purpose as well. Perhaps the ability of the court to shut down cases
like this is somewhat less than optimal at present, and SCO's as good a patsy
as any. God knows it's got to be frustrating to waste hours, days, weeks,
years of your time "being fair", when all you really want to do is
b****-slap people like SCO's execs and lawyers.
Perhaps the judge, seeing the potential mess that is the SCO case, is letting
this thing go way beyond reasonable measure, in order to set a more solid
precedent. By showing that she's given SCO plenty of time (they started this
mess a year ago, and still haven't got a clue why they're in court, according
to SCO own people), she sets a "worst case scenario" up, which
allows herself and other judges to point to this case and say, "sorry,
another company tried to go fishing without any bait, and it was a waste of the
court's time. Come back when you have a case".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RDH on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 04:24 PM EST |
| I'm sorry, I just can't help it. I read all this stuff from SCO. It percolates
through my tiny little brain, and then it coughs up this non-sense. Then again,
I should probably consider the source.
This is meant for entertainment
purposes only.
This is satire. If the concept is foreign to you, or if you
are completely devoid of a sense of humor, please do not read any further.
Satire is intended to poke fun at an issue or otherwise make a person think
about the issue in a different light. Anyone who takes this as the literal truth
needs to stay away from satire.
**************************************************************
SCO
Granted Extension to Comply with Non-Compliance
Scud News
Service
Lindon, Utah – 24 January 2004
The SCO Group, formerly Caldera
International and formerly The Santa Cruz Organization, was granted an extension
by Utah Federal District Court Judge Wells on IBM's motion to compel discovery.
On December 5, 2003, SCO was given thirty days to comply with IBM's request for
discovery.
Blake Stowell of SCO was on hand to give reasons for the
extension. He first stated that the extension was mutually agreed upon, but this
claim was later refuted by IBM spokesperson Mike Darcy. It then fell to SCO to
give explanation for the extension. Chris Sontag read a statement that is
purported to have been drafted by Kevin McBride, lawyer for SCO and brother to
current CEO Darl McBride, and Ray Tibbitts, who does something for SCO that no
one is quite sure of despite being granted a title.
“The process of
discovery is very tricky,” Stowell began. “Forcing the plaintiff in this case to
produce evidence regarding the charges brought forward requires that ample
evidence first be present. We have contended time and again that the evidence is
there, but we require IBM to show us the evidence before we can proceed. Thus,
we complied in spirit with the motion to compel on interrogatories even if we
did not quite meet the letter of the order.”
When asked by the press to
differentiate between this apparent conflict, Stowell proceeded to speak at
length.
“What is compliance?” Stowell questioned at the beginning.
“Compliance means one is meeting up to the responsibilities set before it by an
authority over such matters. In the hearing on the motion to compel, IBM
asserted, although it was not directly stated, that SCO was not providing the
evidence of its claims in this case. We hold that we told IBM they were
infringing on our IP {ed: intellectual property} through code donation to the
Linux kernel in direct violation with our contracts and sales agreements. If
they don't believe us, then we assert it is the responsibility of IBM to prove
us wrong.
“We complied in part with the court order to compel by providing
over sixty pages that we wrote stating IBM was in violation of our IP. We
believe we complied with the order even if it does appear as though we did not.
Non-compliance is, in and of itself, a form of compliance because it shows that
we at least understood the intent of the order and the interrogatories. However,
it is impossible for us to comply completely when IBM is holding up the process
by withholding the evidence we know they possess. In order for us to fully
comply, we need IBM to hand over our evidence. By not doing so, IBM forced us
into a position of non-compliance.
'The grant of the extension, we believe,
proves that IBM is directly interfering with the progress of the case since they
adamantly refuse to prove our claims for us. Thus, it becomes quite clear that
the guilt of non-compliance lies on the shoulders of IBM and not SCO. We tried
to comply, but IBM would not help us. I think it is obvious to even the most
insane person that our non-compliance was full compliance in the face of the
first non-compliance by IBM in forcing us to comply with an order that compelled
our compliance even when we were not in a position to adequately comply.”
In
the course of trying to sort through the logic as presented by Mr. Stowell,
several reporters dropped dead of brain hemorrhages. The sound of bodies
striking the floor seemed to go unnoticed by Mr. Stowell.
“I believe you
will find,” Stowell continued despite the agony he was inflicting, “That our
charges hold up well under scrutiny if one overlooks the absence of evidence at
this point. We asset again the following facts: 1) UNIX contains programming
code, 2) Linux contains programming code, 3) IBM has programmers who worked with
both UNIX and Linux code, 4) IBM also has programmers who developed AIX and they
later purchased Dynix, 5) all of these code bases have the letter 'x' in it, 6)
SCO is a distributor of UNIX and, until recently – or perhaps continuing –
contributed to and distributed Linux, 7) SCO used to be Caldera, 8) IBM had
sales agreements with SCO regarding UNIX, 9) SCO did not fully understand when
it was contributing to Linux that it was contributing to Linux, and 10) IBM must
have donated code to Linux because they had and have UNIX programmers.”
Mr.
Stowell was compelled at this point to take a deep breath. Several corpses were
removed from the floor during the pause.
“As you can clearly see by the
items I have listed, IBM must be guilty of contractually prohibited
contributions to the Linux kernel code base,” Stowell asserted again. “As
Raymond Tibbitts stated in his brief to the court regarding compliance, the
holidays are also guilty of aiding in our non-compliance compliance. We feel
that it was incumbent on IBM to reschedule the holidays so that our personnel
would be in our offices at the time. The process of discovering what we do and
do not have was hampered by the fact that our engineers were unable to compare
our UNIX code sources with the most recent IBM AIX/Dynix code bases, and, thus,
were unable to show a copying into Linux. Had IBM properly assisted us in
developing this case, the proceedings would have been much, much quicker. It is
easy to infer from what I have stated that our non-compliance was, in fact,
compliance. Any questions?”
Despite the wide array of questions that were
lobbed at Mr. Stowell, he resorted to his notes and restated everything that he
had said previously. The death toll was mounted in the press room, except by the
financial analysts who seemed understand everything perfectly. Mr. Stowell
appeared completely oblivious to the anguish he was inflicting on the reporters
present.
The final analysis is that the deadline to comply with the order
was postponed for two weeks.
On side note: Scud News Services have several
job openings for reporters. Combat pay will now be included for those who are
stationed in Utah.
© 2004 RDH, Ltd. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
Boy I hope they don't resort to the, "well with Valentine's day coming
up your honor, we just didn't have the time to...." defense. Usually
developing a web of deceit requires a little more creativity then that, but then
again, so does developing worthwhile software.
When windows become walls the beg to be OPENed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST |
Wow!!!!
For those who don't know http://rinkworks.com/dialect/ is where the translater
is. The strange thing is that if you put either of these translations in and
select moron for the output, you get Darls whole letter to congress Word for
Word!!! and when you put the exact letter in before translation and select
moron, the letter doesn't have any words changed... That is weird. Is Darl
and co just a bunch of morons?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
How to link directly to a mainline comment on an article.
I am posting this in text mode, since the objective is to show the format of
links, and to make sure I don't forget how to do it again. If you don't want
the blow-by-blow, skip to the end of this comment.
THE BLOW-BY-BLOW
The mainline article I was trying to link directly to was:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108#c58891
You can go to that article by copy/paste of the link location to the navigation
toolbar of your browser. If this post had been in HTML format, I would have
typed
<a href=""> </a>
Then I would have copied the link location and some text to get:
<a
href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108#c58891&q
uot;> My response ... </a> to the Salt Lake Tribune.
This would have provided a one-click link to my mainline post.
I found the method for constructing the URL in:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20040120193211907&ti
tle=How+to+link+directly+to+a+comment&type=article&order=&pid=56101
A variation of this method for constructing the URL is: append the comment's
#c number to the URL for a Groklaw story. You can then construct a one-click
link, if you are posting in HTML mode.
To find the URL for a Groklaw story, go to Groklaw Home, and copy the URL found
by right clicking the shortcut to the story and selecting copy URL. This works
in Mozilla, and, I think in other browsers.
To find the #c number for the comment that you want to link to, go to the
Groklaw story, e.g., by pasting the story's URL to the navigation toolbar of
your browser. Go to the comment you want to link to, e.g., by searching for
words in it using your browser. Then right click the reply line, and note the
pid number (just the digits).
Append #c and the number to the story's URL to construct the comment's URL.
If you are posting in HTML mode, type
<a href="u?">t?</a>c?, replace u? by the comment's URL,
t? by a title abstracting the comment you are linking to, and c? by additional
comments and punctuation outside the shortcut.
To illustrate, here is the way I constructed the link
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108#c58891
At Groklaw Home, I right-clicked "Why the Hearing Was Postponed --
Rashoman Version" and selected "Copy Link Location". In an
empty browser navigation toolbar, I pasted the result:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108
I went to the story, and searched for "My response". I found my
comment: "My response to Mims's (PJ, note spelling) Salt Lake Tribune
article". I right-clicked on the "Reply" shortcut at the end
of my comment, and pasted the result into a gedit window:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?sid=20040124084105108&pid=58891&title
=My%20response%20to%20Mims%27s%20%28PJ%2C%20note%20spelling%29%20Salt%20Lake%20T
ribune%20article&type=article
I found "&pid=58891" buried in this URL, and appended
"#c58891" to the story's URL. The result was:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108#c58891
AN EASIER WAY TO DO THIS
It took me 2 hours to figure this out, because I lost the previous post
describing the method, and tried to guess. The method I just described works,
but there is an easier way: just go to the comment you want to link to, copy
the Reply link location to scratch, and construct the comment's URL from the
information in the copied URL: The first part is the story's URL, and the part
after "&pid=" is the comment number.
Doing this with my mainline comment yields:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108#c58891
The corresponding shortcut is:
<a
href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040124084105108#c58891&am
p;quo
t;> My response ... </a> to the Salt Lake Tribune.
It is just as easy if you want to link to a comment which is a response rather
than mainline. Go to the the parent of the comment, right click the link to the
reply, and select Copy Link Location. Doing this with one of my comments
yields:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20040124084105108&ti
tle=I+found+the+link+telling+how+to+link+directly+to+a+mainline+comment+on+an+ar
ticle&type=article&order=&pid=58904
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST |
For some reason, every time I read the quotes by SCO about how many lines of
UNIX code were illegally contributed to Linux, I think of the lines in the
Manchurian Candidate where Senator Iseland (sp?) keeps coming up with some
number of communists in the U.S. Army. Sometimes the number is different in
consecutive sentences.
Later in the movie, he asks his wife if they can come up with a single number of
card carrying communists in the army because he feels like an idiot since the
numbers never match with other statements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stdsoft on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST |
The question of SCO's chance of winning a large court settlement has been
nagging, so I decided to take a hard look. In summary, the probability that SCO
will prevail on a claim of at least $1BB is about .0000000000004, or one chance
in 2.5 trillion.
Anyone new to the SCO debate should understand that SCO is deliberately
misleading the press in order to mislead investors. The IBM case is not about
allegations that UNIX code was placed in Linux by IBM. SCO likes for investors
to think this, because it allows them some justification for outrageous damage
claims. Rather, it is about know-how (trade secrets) SCO alleges that IBM
lifted from IBM's proprietary AIX operating system and then used to help
develop certain Linux functions.
Here are the barriers that SCO has to overcome to prevail and obtain a jury
award in the IBM case. An educated guess is taken at the percent chance SCO has
to prevail on each issue:
1] SCO must prove that they have the right to control derived works of UNIX
System V. This is an issue currently in dispute with Novell. The Asset
Purchase Agreement does not appear to give SCO this right. This issue will
probably be contained in a counter-suit soon to brought against SCO by Novell.
[10% chance]
2] SCO must prove that IBM’s AIX can be legally regarded as a derived work of
UNIX System V. Many legal experts believe SCO has stretched the definition of
derived works beyond the limit that will hold in court.
[10% chance]
3] SCO must prove that specific functionality (not source code) found in Linux
is also found in IBM’s AIX, but not also found in UNIX SysV (since there are no
trade secrets in UNIX SysV). This will be hard for SCO to do since they have
already looked over a prior release of AIX and didn’t find this evidence.
Further, the courts are not likely to allow SCO to go on a fishing expedition
and obtain the most release of AIX from IBM until SCO can provide specific
evidence to back up their allegations.
[3% chance]
4] SCO must prove, without doubt, that IBM is responsible for contributing
specific know-how into Linux efforts derived from software licensed from SCO.
This will be difficult since IBM applies a rigorous development process to
prevent the deliberate or inadvertent transfer of licensed IP.
[1% chance]
5] SCO must prove that their own employees are not responsible for introducing
the trade secrets alleged of IBM. SCO employees guided development of the more
advanced features of Linux before SCO dropped the Linux direction. In fact, SCO
touched about every enterprise aspect of Linux during SCO’s involvement.
[5% chance]
6] SCO must prove they have been materially harmed. It would be nearly
impossible for SCO to demonstrate that Linux would have been any less successful
without the contribution of the specific trade secrets. SCO has to prove that
this know-how could have only been provided by IBM, and only by the IBM
personnel that also worked on AIX.
[5% chance]
7] SCO must demonstrate that remuneration for any proven harm should be
substantial. SCO’s core product revenues were small ($12MM per quarter) and
declining ($250K per quarter) before IBM had a chance to contribute AIX know-how
to the development of Linux enterprise functionality. Linux was already hurting
SCO’s business before IBM’s assistance could have been introduced. So how much
more was SCO’s business possibly hurt because of IBM? Another $100K per
quarter? $50K? $25K?
What are the chances that SCO is able to prove economic harm caused by trade
secret violations of IBM?
Damage of at least $1MM [5% chance]
Damage of at least $10MM [.5% chance]
Damage of at least $100MM [.05% chance]
Damage of at least $1B [.005% chance]
Summary
===========================================
P(all events) = P(event 1) * P(event 2) * … P(event 7)
P(events 1 through 6) = 0000000075 or .00000075% chance
P(Damage Award of at least $1MM): .0000000004
P(Damage Award of $10MM): .00000000004
P(Damage Award of $100MM): .000000000004
P(Damage Award of $1B): .0000000000004[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 06:34 PM EST |
This is WAY off topic.
This Saturday morning I went to
Fry's in Palo Alto,
California to buy a new hard drive (great deal,
$120 for a
160GB Maxtor UDMA/133, $30 rebate). Those here in
California know that Fry's is an electronic superstore
with everything
from candy to capacitors, heaters to hard
drives, and toys to transistors,
with usually the best
prices. Service; that's another story.
Anyhow, being the usual geek I decided to peruse the CPU
and RAM
prices table in this chalk-board sized glass display, and
I noticed
something odd.
At the bottom of the display there were
"new PC" packs of
Windows XP, MS-Office 2003, and Office Student/Teacher
offered at substantial breaks if you bought any hardware
over
~$100. They were propped conveniently there for all
geeks who assemble
their own PC's, like me, to notice. No
proprietary alternative at all. Not
even SuSE, RedHat,
Mandrake or OpenOffice (even though all of those were
available at the OS software section, which I might add,
was well stocked
with all of the above). Oh, and Microsoft
Server 2003 was only $1999!
Bargain! Not.
As I walked away, I kept wondering... why...
who... how?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST |
| 6] SCO must prove they have been materially harmed. It would be
nearly
impossible for SCO to demonstrate that Linux would have
been any less
successful without the contribution of the specific
trade secrets. SCO has to
prove that this know-how could have only
been provided by IBM, and only by
the IBM personnel that also
worked on AIX.
I could have missed
it but..... has anyone researched for white
papers, research reports,
technical documents, etcetera that are in
the
public domain addressing NUMA,
RCU and/or whatever SCO
happens to be claiming on any given day?
While there might be trade secrets involved, given SCO's
ummm lack of
apparent focus. I was just wondering if there was
enough prior art (if that's
the right term) that would have been
sufficient for a knowledgeable person
writting code to create "trade
secret" quality programs. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST |
Hi, all. I'm Bob Mims of the Salt Lake Tribune.
The purpose of any true news story, as my 30 years in this business has taught
me, is to report both sides -- including their inconsistencies, along with
whatever else can be learned to test the veracity of those statements.
A reporter then provides the reader with the results, but is not supposed to
make conclusions of his or her own. (At least, that's how I learned this biz,
starting out with AP).
Conclusions? That's for readers.
Sure, I have opinions on all this, but a news story is not the place for them.
And, I don't write editorials.
Still, thanks to those of you have written me, both those who offer their
expertise is support, or critically.
Almost a year ago, it was one of you who tipped me off to Groklaw; I've been a
regular "lurker" ever since, and have had the pleasure of speaking
with its editor on occasion.
Feb. 6 ought to be very enlightening, regardless of which side of this
"debate" you are.
All the best,
Bob Mims
bmims@sltrib.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:11 PM EST
- Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:13 PM EST
- Welcome - Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST
- Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version - Authored by: Jude on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:38 PM EST
- welcome aboard bob mims - Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 08:52 PM EST
- Welcome - I appreciate your work, but one small suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Relaying press releases is not good journalism - Authored by: linonut on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 10:45 PM EST
- I responded to Mim's article. Want to see a press release. - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:00 PM EST
- The forth estate - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST
- Thanks Bob - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 12:51 AM EST
- Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 12:53 AM EST
- Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 02:25 AM EST
- Why the Hearing Was Postponed -- Rashomon Version - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 02:18 PM EST
- Points on news stories - Authored by: sphealey on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Jack Hughes on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 03:36 AM EST |
Something I've noticed in recent weeks: Right from the
outset of the IBM case, TSG has continually gone on record
via the various PR channels with comments, observations,
spin, propaganda etc on their interpretation of the case.
While IBM has beeen very very silent.
It is considered normal to keep quiet about stuff which
pertains to an ongoing case under the principle of "what
you say may be used in evidence". Indeed, TSG's various
press statements have been referenced in IBM's motions.
We've characterised TSG as being "foolish" in this
respect, while IBM has been "wise".
Now it seems that IBM has started to engage in PR on this
matter - and now seems to have a dedicated PR spokesman to
channel stuff out to the media.
This raises the question "Why the change?". Does IBM feel
that the case is practically over so that it is OK to
start making statements on the Trial? Or is the constant
TSG PR starting to annoy and the need to counter the FUD
in some way. Is the spread of FUD into wider areas
(congress etc.) significant?
Thoughts any one? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 04:42 AM EST |
| I agree with Nathan!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 05:16 AM EST |
| Please note that SCO's Annual Report on Form 10-K is due to be filed with the
SEC by Thursday, January 29. It should make for interesting reading -- for
example, we will get to see whether SCO's external auditors agree with SCO's
accounting for the MS and Sun transactions and thus implicitly on the Novell
allegations.
Also note that, in the Registration Rights Agreement with the
Series A Preferred holders, SCO agrees to use its best efforts to get the
Registration Statement declared effective by the "Registration Deadline", which
is defined to mean (i) the 90th day after October 16 (January 14) if the RS
receives "no review" from the SEC; (ii) the 120th day after October 16 (February
13) if the RS is reviewed by the SEC; or, (iii) the 150th after October 16
(March 14) if, in reviewing the RS, the SEC also reviews the Company’s 10-Ks,
10-Qs or 8-Ks.
Thus, since SCO did not make the 90 day "no review" deadline,
it appears likely that the SEC has reviewed the RS and possibly issued a comment
letter on it. The amendments make the other day may in part be an attempt to
respond to the SEC comment letter. It may be possible for interested parties to
obtain a copy of this SEC comment letter pursuant to a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request to the SEC.
Note also that if SCO does not get the RS
declared effective by within 30 days of the applicable "Registration Deadline",
the Series A investors can force a cash redemption.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 06:43 AM EST |
Great to see Darl's letter is getting such a fantastic reaction :-)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,1456717,00.asp
"SCO is just out for money," contended an IT staffer from the US.
Department of State.
The State Department is now exploring a move to Linux for running its core
applications. "Linux is robust," the IT staffer reasoned.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tintak on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 07:44 AM EST |
Hi All. It is being mooted by some elements of the British press (The Daily
telegraph) that Bill Gates is likely to be offered an honoury knighthood.
I pass this on without comment.
---
What shape should a weathervane be?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 08:08 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: alasmi on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 09:53 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 11:20 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 08:23 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 10:22 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: sculdoon on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 12:44 PM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
- Scandalous Royalty - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 12:46 PM EST
- If Bill is an honory knight... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST
- OT: Sir Bill - Authored by: jbeadle on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 09:31 AM EST |
| I ran accross this seminar, OSDL: Accelerating The
Adoption And Use Of Linux , this morning. Its a presentation by Brian
Grega, of the Open Source Development Labs. Take a close look at where it comes
from in the site's URL.
Any wagers about just how long it will reamin there? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST |
| On vote SCO you can give you opinion about SCO (in Dutch). A translation
from a friend reads:
button [stem zelf]: Vote yourself
button [eigen
ervaring]: Own experience (only for HCC members)
The [stem zelf] button
brings you to the page containing:
prijzen (prices): 1 peperduur
(very expensive); 2 matig (bad); 3 redelijk (reasonable); 4 goed (good); 5
spotgoedkoop (dirt-cheap)
kwaliteit (quality): 1 prutswerk (botched
job); 2 matig (bad); 3 redelijk (reasonable); 4 goed (good); 5 uitmuntend
(excellent)
service (service (translated this one myself :-)):
1
beneden alle peil (worst then worse); 2 matig (bad); 3 redelijk (reasonable); 4
goed (good); 5 geweldig (marvelous)
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 11:37 AM EST |
Search Enterprise Linux has an article about the 2.6 kernel and some other
things.
Russell Pavlicek, an author and consultant with Linux Professional
Solutions points out.
The least understood but most important
reason to use Linux in the enterprise is not cost, but control.
...."Dealing
with closed-source is kind of like trying to find the right city bus," Pavlicek
said. "Open source is a lot more like a taxi cab. ... You get in and the driver
says, 'Where do you want to go?'"
Wait a minute. Where have I
heard that "Where do you want to go" before?
Also in this article. IBM wants
to pick you up when MS drops NT.
---
lpletch@adelphia.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I can top that - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 12:49 PM EST
- I can top that - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 11:44 AM EST |
If you didn't catch this off slashdot, this crowd will probably find it
interesting...
Even the Linux Man Page project respects copyrights... but won't have to
anymore. Looks as if IEEE has opening up POSIX standards documents for the
project.
Ah, the benefits of sharing.
http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_linuxman.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 01:11 PM EST |
Time for another review, I think.
At bottom of message screen, change "Plain Old Text" to "HTML
formatted"
Then, here's the coding:
<a href="actual URL goes inside double quotes">highlighted
description of link; can repeat URL if you like</a>
Use <p> to separate paragraphs. Simply using a blank line won't work in
"HTML formatted".
You can then click on "Preview" to see if you did it right. The
highlighted part should show up in green and the mouse cursor should change to a
hand to indicate the link is truly live. You can use "Preview" as
often as you like to make corrections.
Then click on "Submit Comment".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST |
LOL
NO!!! Do not let her somehow taint bad music any more than it is!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST |
You may be able to download Linux for free, but there are compelling reasons to
pay, such as supporting the companies that suport F/OSS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST |
This will go down in history as a poor choice, just like J Edgar Hoover's one.
Incidentally the power of information kept J Edgar on top for many, many years -
this was in the days before the commercial valuer of information, data
warehousing, etc was realized. His outfit had the info on all aspiring and
current politicians.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
SCO has claimed copyright for code that was provably written by others (there's
a comment about this in the LKML).
Now, what if you the engineer that took some open source code, removed the
copyrights and then incorporated it into SCO's codebase, what would you say
when someone pointed out the similarity between the the code in SCO's codebase
and the kernel?
Obviously, you keep lying -- you claim that you wrote the code.
We keep commenting on the behavior of SCO's managers, but is it possible that
those managers have also been duped by their own engineers?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 09:03 PM EST |
LiarLiar is:
"a voice stress analysis (VSA)
tool. LiarLiar's main purpose is to detect stress in a person's voice when they
are communicating. Stress can be one indicator of whether or not a person is
being truthful in the statements and communcations that he or she is
making."
Some on LWN have suggested this would be
useful for SCO teleconferences etc.
It is still pre-beta and not very
accurate but I may give it a try anyway and see how it rates Mr. McBride in his
moments of glory. ---
lpletch@adelphia.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Sunday, January 25 2004 @ 11:14 PM EST |
This info shamelessly ripped from Frank Sorenson at sco.tuxrocks.com
98 - Magistrate Notice of Hearing Motion hearing set for 10:00 2/6/04 for all
pending motions:
[83-1] motion to extend time for pla to respond to dft IBM's third set of
interrogatories and third request for production of documents
[73-1] motion to strike the 5th, 15th, and 19th affirmative defenses asserted by
the SCO Grp in its Answers to IBM' Amended Counterclaims
[66-1] motion to Compel Discovery
[52-1] motion to extend time to 10/24/03 for pla to resp to mot/compel
[51-1] motion to extend time to respond to dft IBM's second set of
interrogatories and second request for production of documents
To be held before Judge Wells cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: JD) (blk) [Entry date
01/22/04]
Thanks Frank. Don't know if you plan on being at the hearing (Jan. 26) but
I'm sure everyone will be looking foreward to hearing from you if you do. Or
even if you don't.
---
lpletch@adelphia.net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stomori on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 01:07 AM EST |
As a fan of movies of Kurosawa,
and a Japanese,
I was very delighted to find
in the title "Rashomon."
http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/cjs/films/reviews/rashomon.html
Thank you PJ!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: one_penguin on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 01:24 AM EST |
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_05/b3868104_mz063.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 01:45 AM EST |
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/26/1074965473171.html
Contains an *ERROR*
Says hearing was Jan 13.
There was no hearing on Jan 13.
SCO filed an affidavit on Jan 13, saying that they [SCO] felt they had compiled
with a Dec 12 court order. The Dec 12 court order was based ona Dec 5
hearing.
The court has not commented yet on the affidavit, or SCO's compliance or
non-compliance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 03:56 AM EST |
Is to see analysis of evidence. This crosses the line into engaging in
speculation. Please take care, lest ye become a second Slashdot.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turing_Machine on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 12:06 PM EST |
<obscure PCU reference>
Droz: Sandscrit. You're majoring in a 5,000-year-old dead language.
Guy: Yeah.
Droz: [hands him a thesis] Latin, best I can do. Next!
Guy #2: Phys. Ed.
Droz: Phys. Ed. Okay, you're out of my room. Seriously. Get out.
</PCU>
Anyone else feel like Darl started with Sandscrit (original claims), then
changed majors to Phys Ed somewhere?
Judge: SCO. You're alleging that IBM took YOUR source and compiled it into
another product?
Kevin: Well, its not really OURS, and we haven't found any actually IN the
product, but it looks the same.
Judge: Sorry. Find the specifics and report back to me.
Kevin: Well, here are the specifics... Well, its not specific, and its because
Winter Break that we didn't find anything, since all the GREP/REGEXP masters in
our office spent the holidays laughing at our requests.
Judge: Winter break kept you from completing this? Get out. No really.
---
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a
mediocre brain, something like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
I read at one time that insiders couldn't sell stock while the company was
engaged in a lawsuit.
How in the world are SCO execs selling stock then?
Or was the other guy not telling the truth?
IMHO, it doesn't make sense for execs to be able to sell stock between end of
quarter and financial figures release, or while a lawsuit is taking place, as
the guy explained.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
