|
|
| Darl Speaks, Kind of, About BayStar and RBC |
 |
|
Friday, May 14 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT
|
LinuxWorld has the first words I've seen from Darl McBride on the BayStar, RBC events: "McBride claims he doesn't know any more than we do. He's had barely any contact with the bank and all he knows is that he got a letter from them last Wednesday outlining what it was doing, but not explaining why. He can't see how RBC has strenghtened its position, because they have nonvoting shares and are not on the board. A puzzlement. "McBride also claims that he doesn't know what BayStar's about either." He is nearly speechless when trying to describe what it's been like since SCO sued IBM: "'This is like...,' he's said to himself, groping for an elucidating comparison, only to conclude, 'Nothing...Nothing compares to what's happened in the last year.'"
Maureen O'Gara's report goes on to mention that BayStar's website indicates that they also invested in Burst, which is suing Microsoft: ". . .Burst is the company, reduced to one or two people, that's suing Microsoft for a tidy packet. It's one of the private antitrust suits that Microsoft has yet to settle. . . .
"Burst has no other business outside its suit and evidently is the model BayStar wants SCO to emulate."
If you go to their website and find the page that lists the computer and software companies they have invested in, you will indeed find Burst on the list, and here is how they describe Burst:"Instant Video Technologies, Inc. (now burst.com), headquartered in San Francisco, California is the leading developer of Faster-Than-Real-Time® and Burst-Enabled® video and audio delivery software. burst.com's Burstware® provides high-quality delivery of full motion video and CD-quality audio over any IP-based network. The company has built an international patent portfolio covering bursting, video delivery scheduling and rapid-casting. Burstware® is a registered trademark of burst.com, and Faster-Than-Real-Time® and Burst-Enabled® are trademarks of burst.com."
But they also list SCO, and if you read their description of the company, it's clear they were investing, or saying they were investing, not just in an IP lawsuit:
"The SCO Group, Inc. is a provider of reliable, cost-effective UNIX operating systems and software products and solutions to small and medium-sized business markets. SCO solutions include UNIX platforms, messaging, authentication, e-business tools, and services that include technical support, education, consulting, and solution provider support programs. The Company’s SCOsource division was formed in January 2003 to review and enforce its UNIX intellectual property rights. It is also developing Web-based applications, products, and services to facilitate connections to the Internet for its customers. SCO has a worldwide presence with representation in 82 countries. This infrastructure enables SCO to provide local support and dependable solutions to businesses around the world. Additionally, SCO has a channel of more than 11,000 solution providers, a developer network of nearly 8,000, thousands of direct account customers, and an installed base of more than two million systems." Fair is fair, and it's obvious that it is BayStar, not SCO, that is trying to change the terms as to what kind of company SCO is or should be. Burst is clearly listed as a patent portfolio company, and SCO is listed as a provider of "reliable, cost-effective UNIX operating systems and software products" who also has a SCOsource IP rights program.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
| For PJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
BayStar's lawyers, he said, still haven't told SCO's lawyers how SCO breached
their contract. So McBride figures BayStar doesn't have a legal leg to stand on
and won't be able to get its money back.
Nothing bothers me more
than a hypocrate! If Baystar won't show their hands, they have nothing, yet if
SCO doesn't show it hands..... arg[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
| how can that be possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: afore on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
Burst is headquartered in Santa Rosa, CA where I live. They sued Microsoft
because Microsoft stole their technology after being in negotiations with
Microsoft, modified it and put it into media player, and then made media player
incompatible with their burst technology. This seems to be a favorite ploy of
Microsoft.
Haven't we heard this before with other technologies?
Art[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Making deals with MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Burst--Ripped Off By Microsoft - Authored by: Weeble on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: Gman on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- SW Licenses - Authored by: bruce_s on Saturday, May 15 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT
- One-sided Burst - Authored by: webster on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- One-sided Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: martinh on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Sendo - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Sendo, too - Authored by: darthaggie on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- Known risk - Authored by: bobh on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Burst - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 15 2004 @ 08:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
Place your links here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Am I the only person really confuse as to what BayStar
is up to? Do they have allies with large amounts of SCO
stock? Was RBC backing out so they bought the shares to
shore up their investment? Did RBC give them a really
good price?
Even when I put on the tinfoil. I still can't come up
with an explanation. Why would M$ want BayStar to do
this?
What are we missing? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Confused - Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: old joe on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: ADRA on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Baystar is doing what they're paid to do... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- I think this may explain it... - Authored by: Solartice on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- what baystar wants - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:36 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
| McBride claims he doesn't know any more than we do. He's had barely any
contact with the bank
This seems remarkable. There is a change in stock
ownership affecting about 7% of his company's shares. Wouldn't one expect him to
be phoning Baystar incessantly to find out what is going on?
Of course
Baystar may simply be not returning his calls, which in itself is rather
telling. ---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at http://scosource.com/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Remarkable - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Remarkable - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ujay on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
Baystar shows us what the future holds. In their own
words
BayStar managing partner Larry Goldfarb, the guy
responsible for the firm's investment in SCO, told the New York Times a couple
of weeks ago that he wants SCO to drop its remaining Unix business, jettison its
current management, husband its resources, focus on pursuing its IP claims and
mind its Ps and Qs in what it says publicly.
...
Goldfarb told the Times
and his PR guy told us - Goldfarb was reportedly out of the country when the
news broke and couldn't speak for himself - that despite his disapproval with
the way SCO is run he is convinced of the legitimacy of its IP claims and of its
winning its case against IBM.
Venture Capitalists are
prepared to support any dubious patent/copyright claim held by any tech company
or patent holder. They have no interest in tech development except where it has
the potential to get them money, and have no concern about the damage they will
do to the tech sector and the economy.
Notice the
quote
Burst has no other business outside its suit and evidently
is the model BayStar wants SCO to emulate.
Don't forget
the ambiguous patents filed by Mike Anderer, who is linked at the hip with this
entire scam. We may win the skirmish with SCO, but until we get software
patents eliminated, and copyrights amended in congress, we will be faced with a
legal 'deja vu' over and over again.
---
Programmer: A biological
system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: QTlurker on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
Isn't the IBM motion due today?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040507015842518
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
Instant Video Technologies, Inc. (now burst.com), headquartered in
San Francisco, California is the leading developer of
...
There's that word again.
Weasel Words
PLC is the leading provider of ambiguous terminology to corporate and government
customers worldwide. Our creative semantics are enhancing the post-facto
redaction potential of our customers' press releases, mission statements, annual
reports and replies to the Opposition. Send us a statement of your needs and we
will reply within a few days, or no less than a week. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: major_figjam on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
So many cases, so little time.......
They get a delay to May 24 to respond to the Autozone answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
Burstware® provides high-quality delivery of full motion video and CD-quality
audio over any IP-based network.
They've obviously never heard of
RFC1149[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Burst technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- True, but with... - Authored by: jayfar on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- HEE - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 08:15 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Xenographic on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
They're right about the proper tactics for an "IP Vampire" as I call
them. IPVs should, ideally, have absolutely nothing that could infringe on
anyone else's IP, so as to get the maximum amount in settlements. You will note
that all of SCO's various contracts (especially the one where Novell can order
them to waive various rights) have seriously hampered their efforts (and yes,
this is a good thing for us!).
Unfortunately, what they don't seem to realize is the harm in abusing the system
like this. This only drives up the cost of actual innovation, but it's dominant
over the other strategies for monetizing IP, so it's going to stick around until
we do something about it :/
It's not the only way of abusing IP rights, either. People have discussed using
DRM to protect worms, spyware, viruses, etc. At least in theory, you could
copyright all music (thanks to some misbegotten precedent), and you could always
get some software or drug patents, release all the details to the public, but
deny ANYONE license to use your patent, ever, thus making it so that only those
without such patents could enjoy the benefits of your innovation...
Of course, these last few ideas are all mine, since I've started wondering
whether there is any way to use the bad laws to illustrate the harm they do
(without actually having to sue anyone or do anything bad) and thus to prompt
reform ... I was inspired to this by the fellow who patented using DRM schemes
to stop software piracy, ironically enough, though he was using it to restrain
some of the reasons companies might want to push DRM schemes upon us ... That
has merit, too, of course, but those patents are going to expire in not so very
long; it would help to have some reforms passed before then, to abate the
continuing harms we're suffering, which don't expire...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ujay on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
After reviewing my previous post, a very large tin foil hat appeared on my head,
and several thoughts occurred to me.
Is it possible that the entire SCO affair is a red herring, keeping our
attention on the publicity and anger surrounding SCO etc..., while those behind
the ploy are busy garnering support, 'in camera' as it were, with
governments around the world.
With Ireland pushing the patent monopoly interests in Europe, and some holding
the opinion that MS is actually behind the Irish push, is it too hard to
envision the US Gov't adopting a stronger position if the patent issue goes
ahead in Europe, simply to protect thier own interests.
Darl McBride et al seem to be quite thick skinned about the whole issue, and
their Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf style comments refuse to withstand scrutiny, so
why do they continue? We wait in breathless anticipation for the next release
of the IP SCOmic Revue, but what is happening elsewhere while our attention is
turned toward their ludicrous claims and comments?
Jack Valenti made a career out of allowing others to underestimate him. His
good ol' boy, aw shucks stance hides a prodigous intellect, and a razor sharp
legal brain; one takes him at face value at their own peril.
So SCO becomes a public joke, and while we do what we can to show the
dubiousness of their position at every turn, are we actually being taken in by
DM and others in the back room. I doubt that DM is a complete idiot, or he
would never have gotten to the position he's in now. He may be thoroughly
ethicless (?), immoral and dangerous, but he's no idiot. As a Canopy company,
there is no real loss to SCO here, as they were sunk anyway. If they go under,
Canopy picks up the pieces, or others will, and carry on the fine tradition of
tanking any innovation with their IP.
---
Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into
code[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
There are some new filings on the Red Hat docket
Anybody seen them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DL on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
This is one of those interesting coincidences, if you want to call it that.
A few years ago, RBC paid a big lump of money to put their name on a sports
arena, the RBC Center, located in Raleigh NC. Fine, nothing wrong a little
sponsorship. The RBC Center is home to the Carolina Hurricanes, an NHL hockey
team, and also the North Carolina State University men's basketball team. The
university owns the arena. Here's the funny bit. The university spans 2
campuses not that far apart. The first is an old, traditional college campus,
but the second is more like a high-tech industrial park with classrooms. The
university leases some of this space to various commercial interests, and one of
these companies happens to be...drum roll...Red Hat. 1801 Varsity Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27606. Look it up on your favorite map website. IBM also has a
major facility in Research Triangle Park, which is just down the road a bit from
Raliegh.
Let's see. Red Hat is suing SCO who received funding from RBC who sponsors an
arena owned by Red Hat's tenant.
NCSU alumnus, in case you're wondering. And, no I don't live in the area any
more.
---
DL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
According to BayStar's Web site, Burst.com is part of its
portfolio. It's unclear what the VC's position is, but Burst is the company,
reduced to one or two people, that's suing Microsoft for a tidy packet. It's one
of the private antitrust suits that Microsoft has yet to settle.
--Thin foil hat on
Weird. This could be viewed as
Microsoft suing itself if the theory that Microsoft has some control over
Baystar is true.
Could it be that if Burst.com wins or settle, much of the
money comes back to Baystar? Is this a case of by funding Burst, they make sure
nobody else is funding them and the bulk of the money will stay between friends?
--Thin foil hat off
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BrianW on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
Want us to sue someone? We can do that!
Want us not to sue you? We
can do that, too!
Here at the SCO Group, litigation is our only
business. And we’ll take money to sue, or not to sue. It’s your
choice!
By transferring an aging asset into our custody, you can gain
access to the profits of litigation without attending a single court session!
We’re litigation experts! We can handle it for you!
On the other hand,
if you want to avoid being on the losing side of a lawsuit with us, we’ll agree
in writing to leave you alone for the one-time, low introductory price of
$699. That’s right! For only $699, we’ll promise not to exercise our
Constitutional right to drag you to court.
Take a look at these
testimonials from our litigants and customers:
“Yeah, we settled out
of court. We had to. I mean, they had these four-color, glossy brochures
declaring that they were the ‘Litigation Experts’ and all. Well, that, and we
actually were trying to illegally monopolize the OS industry. ” –
Microsoft
“We bought a what from who, now? So they won’t what to us?
Oh, so THAT’S what the settlement was all about. ” – Computer
Associates
“Having SCO sue Microsoft on our behalf is the best thing
to happen to us since NetWare. ” – Novell
“Having SCO sue us on
Microsoft’s behalf is the worst thing to happen to us since NetWare. ” –
Novell
“We were pretty much blindsided. We didn’t see it coming.
Very clever, those SCO people, using unanswered correspondence to a non-existent
address as a guise for acting in good faith. I applaud their underhandedness.
” – Daimler Chrysler
“Well, yes, I suppose it is technically
true that The SCO Group hasn’t sued me since I took out a SCO-Source license,
but if I had to do it all over again…” – EV1
“Man, I can’t
believe WE used to be the bad guys! These guys make our dark and evil days look
like a day at the amusement park! ” – IBM
“First, they help us
migrate from UNIX to Linux, then they sue us for migrating from UNIX to Linux.
With friends like that, who needs enemies? ” – AutoZone
Yes, you
heard that right! The SCO Group can be your friend, OR your enemy! The choice
is yours!
But they’re both going to cost you!
Operators are
standing by! Call now! (Or ELSE!)
---
//Brian
#define IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
"...since suing IBM. "This is like...," he's said to himself,
groping for an elucidating comparison, only to conclude, "Nothing...Nothing
compares to what's happened in the last year.""
At the risk of sounding anal, I must ask: what happened to the part of that
interview with El Pais, where he said he had become stronger?
"BayStar hasn't withdrawn its demand that SCO return its money and
BayStar's lawyers, he said, still haven't told SCO's lawyers how SCO breached
their contract. So McBride figures BayStar doesn't have a legal leg to stand on
and won't be able to get its money back."
Jumping to conclusions is like any kind of jumping: the higher the jump, the
harder the landing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
We learn in this message that none
other that Microsoft is placing their thumb on Europian politics by sponsoring
their very own candate for Presidency of the Europian Union.
Now we note
that, Microsoft officially sponsors the Irish presidency of the
European Union .
According to Olga Zrihen, member of the European parliament
Belgian socialist
party, "We have the right to question this situation: the
presidency of the EU,
which is a central element of the European legislative
process, and is supposed
to obey the democratic principles, accepts to be
sponsored by a private company
whose economic interests are directly put into
cause by a legislative
proposition on the agenda of the Council!
Furthermore, knowing that the
"compromise" proposal emanating from the Irish
presidency rejects all of the
European parliament's first lecture amendments,
which corresponds to the demands
of Microsoft, there is a feeling of great
worry."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
I guess little Daryl now knows what happens when you fling poop into a rotary
oscillator. May it cover him completely before it's all said and done.
Hopefully, he will be so completely and throughly blacklisted in the western
world that he will have to go to Iraq to find a job.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
"...and SCO is listed as a provider of "reliable, cost-effective UNIX
operating systems and software products" who also has a SCOsource IP rights
program. "
I can't tell if BayStar is lieing or just delusional, but it must be clear by
now that they didn't do their homework before they handed over the cash.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Wait, I thought Baystar is controlled by Microsoft.
But if Baystar invests in a tiny litigation company whose sole business is to
draw money out of Microsoft then I start wonder ing if this is a kind of money
laundering scheme (just a wild guess), or Baystar isn't really controlled by
Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tizan on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
I'm wondering if people are investing in litigation just like they were
investing in
'.com' ...just because they can make money...
But make money out of what, one asks...what is the product or the service ?
So similar to '.com'...those with no valid product died....i suspect here too we
will witness this...but sadly we can expect a rise of such companies before the
burst.
---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
This simply jumps off the page:
"Additionally, SCO has a
channel of more than 11,000 solution providers, a developer network of nearly
8,000, thousands of direct account customers, and an installed base of more
than two million systems."
To munge an old cliche, "If
SCO has an installed base of two million systems, then I'm a monkey's uncle," or
possibly, "SCO will have an installed base of two million systems when Richard
Stallman formats his box and installs Windows 98."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 8000 developers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- They're probably counting... - Authored by: jayfar on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- The numbers... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- Darl Speaks, Kind of, About BayStar and RBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 09:33 PM EDT
- They were doing Linux when they wrote that - Authored by: tangomike on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT
- Darl Speaks, Kind of, About BayStar and RBC - Authored by: gdt on Saturday, May 15 2004 @ 02:27 AM EDT
- Darl Speaks, Kind of, About BayStar and RBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 15 2004 @ 06:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
Their investments indicate their sole purpose is to abuse the patent and
copyright system to tax productive organizations. Maybe it would be a good idea
to start asking both houses of the US government to review the situation, since
this IP abuse does not encourage innovation or compensate artists.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Though FUD has been suppressed somewhat, a large block of the public still
remains, much to my chagrin, and are harming the entire world every day, by
damaging the Internet.
The average Jane/Joe Public who use M$ products (now renamed Jane and Joe
Windows) have been so massively mislead by the IT and mainstream press in the
past, that they still accept runaway popups, BSOD, and other weirdness as
'normal'. Also, these Windows users see no connection between themselves and the
reports of "billions of dollas in damage" to the economy of the
world.
Jane/Joe Windows don't yet have a clue that their very own Microsoft-powered
computer is the SOURCE of all that spam in their email boxes, and the SOURCE of
the spread of the damaging virus attacks they read about. So, naturally, there
is also no sense of responsibility for contributing to the problems of the
Internet. There is no sense of taking precautions to avoid their computer
becoming a spam zombie, or of patching the inferior product that they choose to
use.
My very strong feeling is that, if Joe/Jane Windows choose to be an M$ customer,
they also must accept the overhead cost in time and money in being responsible
citizens of the world by protecting the Internet resource from their choice of
operating system.
Mr./Ms. Windows, you should spend the time required to download those Windows
updates, many times a month, even when it takes hours every day. If you don't,
you damage the Internet, which affects the entire world. Whenever you say,
"They should do something!", it is only fair to let you know that IT
IS YOU, Jane and Joe Windows, and other M$ customers, who are aiding and
abetting the attacks on the Internet through your neglectful lack of knowledge
and inaction.
Jane/Joe Windows, you should blindly accept the additional restrictions put on
you by the EULA's that are part of every update, because you need that update in
place IMMEDIATELY and don't have time to read it, much less do the proper thing
and consult your lawyer about the rights M$ is taking from you. In that case,
only you are being damaged.
Jane and Joe, you MUST spend the additional MONEY to buy and keep up to date, a
threat detection software package. An antivirus package like Norton Antivirus,
is NOT sufficient; the attacks today have surpassed antivirus technology!
Mr./Ms. Windows, you MUST SPEND the TIME it takes to download updates to that
threat protection package as they become available, as well as the time it takes
to install them, and then SCAN your entire computer to detect and (hopefully)
remove those threats. If you don't, you damage the Internet, which affects the
entire world negatively in many ways.
Now, Jane/Joe Windows, claiming ignorance of the pandora's box you have let
loose can no longer be an excuse. Neither should you site lack of skills to
apply and use these threat removal tools and M$ update procedures. You are
causing damage, so you must live up to the social responibility of taming the
beast you bought!
"Well," says the newly enlightened M$ product user, "I should sue
Bill Gates for bringing this guilt and shame upon myself, on my family, on my
friends, on charitable organizations everywhere, and on my company by
fraudulently telling me this Windows is a useful and fun product!"
Sorry, Mr./Ms. Windows. Remember those EULA's you never read? They specifically
say the products you bought have no indemnification, may not suit your needs,
have no quality warranty, and, especially, that you forever waive the right of
bringing charges against Microsoft, even if the damage is so broad as to damage
your freedom and the economy of the world. They also say that you agree to let
Microsoft transfer content and run programs on your computer, whenever they
want. Don't you remember, you clicked on I AGREE without taking the 20-page
printout (you DID print it out?) to your lawyer for acceptability. So, this
social disease has no insurance!
If you don't do all of the above, M$ product users, you damage the Internet,
which affects the entire world negatively. Please, don't be irresponsible, every
HOUR more damage is done by YOU, by running Windows without protection.
--------
Casual sex without protection spreads AIDS. Casual use of Windows spreads
Internet catastrophies that drain BILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the world economy.
And that, folks, is not FUD.
---------
Shame on you, the Mainline and IT Press, for not recognizing or reporting on
this catastropy. All it takes to fix is money and time, repeated daily for the
rest of our lives.
Well, there is another choice. We could decide to change operating systems on
home and desktop computers. Lets see: there is Apple, based on a BSD, UNIX-like
operating system. It works pretty good. Then, there is that one the National
Security Agency of the United States of America recommends. What is it? Oh yes:
Linux is its name, with mostly GNU software, GNU/Linux, and the whole system is
free, as in freedom, control by the user, liberty. Its cost is also a little
less than normal: $0.00.
Are we the people ready to take back control of our intellectual tools? We have
experienced Redmond's solution. Time is running out on freedom of the computer..
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO, {;)}
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
SCO's claims WRT Baystar are not credible.
Baystar's claims WRT SCO are not credible.
Together, these tell me the actions taking place are not what
these incredible sources make them out to be.
If one conjectures thusly, then I think that what we are seeing
is an endgame designed to bring all the litigation to a close
*without* a definitive resolution. Under duress or whatever,
SCO will close up the lawshuits and have the results sealed.
Thereafter, the cloud over Linux remains. Proprietary
software vendors will position their products against Open
source with comments about how it "may" include proprietary
codes and they "may" get sued if they choose to run it and
can they afford to take the chance when the proprietary
stuff is really so much better and ... ad naseum.
For whatever it's worth, is there any way that the Linux
Community can join the lawsuits to prevent them from being
settled and sealed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
Has anyone heard anything on the allegedly infringing code in Linux SCO was
ordered to detail "with specificity" to IBM some weeks ago? Was it
ever delivered, was it what IBM asked for, was it satisfactory to them, or did
SCO just give them the same old song and dance they've been doing all along? Or
did SCO dropping the copyright claim moot the matter? I have neither seen nor
heard anything on this from anywhere.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, May 15 2004 @ 12:19 AM EDT |
| Woohoo, I win the "find the most outrageous claim for SCO's developer network"
prize!
PRODUCT EXPO 2003 EXHIBITOR PROFILES
Based in London,
Utah, SCO has a worldwide presence with offices in 18 countries and
representation in 82 countries. This infrastructure enables SCO to provide local
support and dependable solutions to businesses around the world. In addition,
SCO has a channel of more than 16,000 solution providers, a developer network
of nearly 10,000 software application developers and an installed base of
more than two million systems.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 15 2004 @ 12:47 AM EDT |
Does anyone else see the irony?
We (including me, actually) applaud the Open Source for designing a competent
operating system around the proprietary Unix and Microsoft Windws operating
systems copyrights and patents, which is undercutting them by Linux vendors
giving it away "for free".
But we denegrade Microsoft for taking Burst.com's software, designing around the
copyright and giving it away for free.
"And since apparently M$ stole the core of their
[Burst's] business and gave it away in Windows
Media Player (kinda hard to compete with "free")..."
?????????????
(Posted anonymously for obvious reasons)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian-from-fl on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
From a recent quote: "That leaves BayStar as the last wooden leg propping
up SCO’s mega-billion-dollar lawsuits. Considering that the venture capital firm
has publicly expressed concerns about SCO’s management team, I can’t imagine CEO
Darl McBride is feeling too cozy right now."
The trouble is that BayStar doesn't think Darl is bad, they think that he's not
bad enough.
I do think that open source software as typified by Apache and Linux ang gcc
will always suffer from the onslaught of the legal system no matter how wrong or
demented that legal system is. Just as they say you should never pick a fight
with people who buy ink by the barrel (the print media), so you are up against a
terrible foe when you are up against people who make the laws (or who own the
people who make the laws).
Groklaw is our only focal point for any hope of fighting back.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
