McBride Speaks, In Person And In Print 782
Phil Windley writes "Darl McBride gave the keynote at CDXPO this evening and held a press conference afterwards. I've posted my summary of his talk and the press conference on my weblog. In his talk, Darl seemed to be saying "Don't hate me. I'm only doing what I had to do."" On the other hand, in this interesting interview with CRN, McBride comes one whisker from likening Linux users to drug users, renews threats to sue end users, and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
dmca? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's he mean by that?
Tinfoil time (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. But apart from paranoia, SCO also seem to suffer from Multiple Personalities Disorder (once they were a Linux vendor, now they hate the GPL), therefore they'll be fine because they outnumbers their ennemies 2 to 1.
Do not be concerned (Score:-1, Insightful)
McBride knows Tricky-questions-dodging-fu (Score:5, Insightful)
McBride: From a legal standpoint, this is not an issue, but its a PR issue.
Nice dodge, we'll see if it works as well in court.
Any way to scare SCO off? (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is obviously going to take a long time to work, and his army of lawyers working on huge sums of borrowed money will just keep leeching from the Linux camp. This might be something you and I can brush off, but the PHBs out there are REALLY not going to take on OSS software so long as shit like this keeps happening.
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, and sadly, no.
Caldera (now SCO) has been sueing people for a long time now. (See: Caldera x Microsoft)
all the big guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it is not important that all the big guys are out to get SCO. In any business sector all the big guys are always out to get all the other competitors. The problem is that SCO has said that there can be only one *nix distributor, and the authority of all other *nixes must come from it. While this benefits certain firms, and those firms have provided as much help as they can, it does not benefit most of the sector, and actually threatens their survival. Which is just common sense. It is one thing to compete against the big guys. It is another thing to publicly call for their death. Such a thing tends to turn the fight into a death match. And no one feels sorry for the guy who starts it.
Re:Medication? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What end-products? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't wait to see their next quarterly 10Q statement, and see how the death spiral continues in their main business while the rest of the enterprise hinges on settlements and/or courthouse victories. Either way, I suspect in 5 years SCO will be but a distant memory.
Re:alternative title... (Score:2, Insightful)
The saying goes a little something like this:
First you ignore them,
Then you laugh at them,
Then you fight them,
Then they win.
GPL and DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought Darl was asinine before, but this is just ridiculous.
Linux people are not the only people against the DMCA Darl! The reason people oppose it is because it infringes upon our rights and every Tom-Dick-and Jackass Corporation in America is trying to invoke the DMCA for things that it shouldn't be invoked for. It's akin to people filing for patents on such things as "one click shopping", etc.
Re:dmca? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do I go to learn to lie this well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems eerily similar to statements that might be made about the lawyers, accountants, and bankers that cooked the Enron books. They are worth every penny because they raise stock prices. They are now shareholders so they have a great incentive to make the stock price stay high using every trick in the book, legal or illegal. I suspect that even if Boies loses his license over this, and pays a fee, he will still be a wealthy man. It might even be worth a couple years in a country club jail.
That's the great untold story no one even asks about. We have over two million servers actively running today. Customers continue to come to us. We have laid out a growth map that will be significant for our customers. In the next year expect Legend, which will take OpenServer and update it. Longer term, expect SVR 6, which will be 64-bit Unix on Intel. That is a few years out.
as compared to
We are informed that participants in the Linux industry have attempted to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. They have been somewhat successful in those efforts and similar efforts and success will likely continue. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.
These type of cases seem to years in the making, and i am sure there will be point when Boise will stop accepting stock and want a greater portion of cash. I suspect there is also a point at which new investors might stop pouring money into SCO, and two or three license agreement only generate so much cash. Not to mention the burn of normal operating costs. Can anyone expect them to survive the 'few year' to 'SVR 6'. And if they win and actually get a couple billion from IBM, will there be any reason to develop for a 64 bit platform. It will be MS model all over again. We own your desktop. We have all the cash. We will tell you what you need.
The second dial is the 2.5 million Linux servers out there today that are paired with our intellectual property in them. We have a licensed product $699, $1,399. Chris [Sontag] is driving that and that's another multi-billion-dollar revenue oppotunity
The third bucket has to do with the IBM settlement. We filed that at $3 billion. Every day they don't resolve this, the AIX meter is still ticking....
I seem to remember an interesting ruling several years ago. It basically said you cannot advertise certain things about certain products at certain prices unless a significant amount or product had been sold at that price. Although that ruling applied to the retail chain, I would think that publicly saying that revenue is going to be generated from a product that you do not even own and have no reasonable exception of owning with the constraints of normal sense would be really close to lying. The funny thing is he separates the ruling in the IBM from expected income from Linux users. The two are in fact connected. The later would tend to negate the former, though the later will not guarantee the former. One really wonders if the clock it winding down faster on AIX or SCO.
No no no no: GPL reworked to be more pro-business (Score:5, Insightful)
What Darl wants, and I will fight to the end of my days to prevent, is a return to the hugely inefficient days when every Tom, Dick and Harry company could build their own unique, incompatible-with-the-universe, expensive custom OSes. Only in the rarest of cases were those systems worth anywhere near their costs. Digital, Data General, IBM, AT&T, Sun, Apollo, (reaching back in history here) Interdata, Xerox, Burroughs, Sperry, RCA, all spent *huge* numbers of their customers' dollars funding their slick research OSes. It was interesting for some, but terrifically expensive for the majority of businesses. On the other hand, the openness implicit in GPLed (and to a lesser extent BSD licensed) code provides an excellent mechanism for encouraging the boad adoption of open standards. These standards lead to portability, interoperability, and the dissemination of the knowledge needed for full participation in information-intensive societies.
<repeating a prior comment>I dropped a fully-paid UNIXware license, converting to Linux in 1996 due to UINXware's inadequate support of then-current hardware. It has only fallen further behind since then. If you want to compete with the big boys, then be prepared to perform up to their standards.</repeat>
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reduction of potential liability or cosy deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Being so reliant on future litigation revenues, its starting to look to me as thought there might possibly be a connection between Red Hat's recent announcement to stop distributing a free linux in favor of enterprise server distro and the SCO intent to get a fee for each linux install.
McBride seems to be playing it very gently with Red Hat
I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I can't help but remember that the fate of Linux and the GPL are about to be handed over to the same legal system that got OJ acquitted and awarded millions to some idiot who couldn't figure out that driving a car with hot coffee between her laps was a bad idea.
The way this McBride talks (IBM, Red Hat, HP, now Novell, next *BSD, then you and me?), it looks like lawsuits will be flying around for a long, long time. Add to this the fact that (yeah, yeah, IANAL) that stupid laws like the DMCA seem give his company at least some grounds for his lawsuits (and besides, who knows if IBM et al. didn't do some really stupid things?).
Who wins in the end? You already know of course: Bill.
Prove me wrong, please!
Armageddon (Score:5, Insightful)
From dictionary.com:
Armageddon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (arm-gdn)
n.
1. Bible. The scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world.
2. A decisive or catastrophic conflic
Before you mod this "off topic" or rant about another SCO article, think about what the this really means for IT in general, and open source in particular. This is THE final, decisive battle between the forces of good and evil.
MS may have a hundred billion dollars in the bank, but they have passed their zenith, and are now slowly, but surely sliding backwards. Country by country, city by city, company by company they are finally starting to lose. Like a fist full of sand, the harder they sqeeze, the more it slips through their fingers.
I don't think the problem is guys like Darl doesn't get it. He does get it, and it probably keeps him awake at night.
More Darl on Crack (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO owns agreements to all UNIX vendors
SCO owns all UNIX System V copyrights
SCO owns all claims for violation of UNIX licenses.
SCO controls UNIX System V derivative works.
I suspect that Novell might just have a few things to say about that!
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because he's lying.
One of the reasons to hire a lawyer is to give yourself plausible deniability. If I want to cause you pain, you hire a lawyer, sue you, and then claim "Its not me, its the lawyer". The lawyer doesn't care; its his job, and you get to pretend like you're an innocent bystander.
Really, think it through. Darl has the strategy, the lawyer is providing tactics, but ultimately, Darl is approving of those tactics, regardless of what he says in public.
I'm more shocked that people are surprised that Darl is lying. Darl is lying every time he makes a public utterance. Darl doesn't care about Unix, Linux, bits, bytes, he's only trying to raise money, and if you look at it through that immoral mindset, then you say anything as long as it maximizes profits.
Realize this: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have sat down in person with people, to explain why this is not true, including going over the GPL in detail with them, line by line.. and they still don't buy it.. the FUD machine has them believing you CANNOT write proprietary software for linux.
abSCOnding with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. You have to have both sets of source code. Now suppose you find identical code. How do you tell which direction the copying was done?
The law does go lenient on criminals that turn themselves in. And in most cases it is very lenient when it is an obvious case of a mistake (not that a bank robbery would be, which is where Darl's analogy breaks down). In cases of intellectual property, where it can be shown the infringement was unintentional, courts very often are lenient, letting the "perpetrator" off easy, usually with just actual economic damages and legal costs (these things can vary depending on how well the defendant cooperates).
So let's suppose IBM did contribute SCO intellectual property to Linux, as alleged. The case is against IBM directly, so IBM could be liable for at least the economic losses and legal costs, and maybe more if it can be show there were things like intent.
But what about the rest of the Linux Community? In a normal case, specific infringments would be identified. Linus will most certainly tear that part of the code out and new original development will take place lightning fast, and a new version of the 2.4 kernel (maybe even the 2.2 kernel) will be out in a few weeks. The 2.6 kernel will end up being squeaky clean.
All SCO will get is past infringement losses, possibly limited to not more than would have been earned for that piece of crap they dare call Unix. What they would never get ... will never get ... is revenue for anything in the future. They would make some money, but they would not have solid future revenues which is what actually drives up equity values. It's future earnings (on everyone else's real work) that they are trying to lock in for themselves (which they can't do if Linus tears out any questionable code, which he is sure to do once it becomes known as such).
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're baffled, it's probably because you see SCO as a company who profits from selling things as apposed to suing people. Their latest shareholder statement seems to really emphasise their Intellectual Property as one of their three main sources of income, but they don't have much exciting to say about the other two. In that light, suing their "customers" is just fine. And so is letting their lawyer set their "business" strategy.
Keep in mind that if McBride does not do what is arguably best for the bottom line of the company, his shareholders can sue him. If you have a bunch of SCO stock and about a billion dollars lying around you can probably sue him for taking a short-sighted approach to keeping his company profitable. Not too many people are in that position though.
The thing that kills me is that SCO's stock is still around $14 (up from $1 in March but falling the past week) - which means that most investors believe that SCO will be worth more in the future. Are they banking on a buyout or a win in court? Yes, I'm shocked, but over the public's reaction. Not McBride's statements.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:5, Insightful)
Several items point to the hypocrisy behind the whole issue:
1. His allusion that the 'big boys' opposing SCO were purely motivated by Capitalism - while his poor little company was merely pursuing their righteous imperative.
2. Then, he states that he has no responsiblity to 'sing kumbaya around the campfire' with the linux users - not customers he is quick to state ["There are only two industries who use the term 'users,' computers and drugs"] - only a responsibility to increase shareowner value (sounds like capitalism to me, particularly as he went on to brag about the SCO stock going from $1 to $14).
Re:GPL...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
And those are what most people would call uninformed arguments. Darl, would you please take a second (OK, a few minutes), read the GPL, see if that argument makes any sense at all, and get back to us.
I suspect that it will take a relatively low-paid law professor to explain this to some very overpaid lawyers.
One of these overpaid lawyers seems to be challenged by the concepts surrounding copyright. So it's understandable that he'd get all tangled up in his underwear trying to comprehend the GPL. Bob Cringely hit it on the head: these guys are not IP lawyers. And a growing number of legal writers appear to agree and are writing to point out the flaws with the SCO case. Personally? I think Boies and McBride are both blinded by all the dollar signs and media attention to see how screwed up their whole case is.
Re:It's a dirty job but someone has to do it...me (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the copyright holder should get their day in court. The copyright holder should also try to mitigate damages -- indeed, their ability to get the court's assistance will be severely limited if they don't. As of yet, they refuse to let us know exactly what we can do to reduce their damages (by refusing to identify the infringing code for removal). This is not consistant with behaviour with this allegation being true.
And consider the lawyer...David Boies. In case you've forgotten what what he's done...
No, I haven't forgotten about Boies losing every high-profile case he's been involved in -- and for good reason. Have you read SCO's legal briefs? They're downright amateurish next to IBM's filings.
Do you think the diligent researchers on Wall Street are confused by McBride's proclamations? No, they do research.
I'll believe that their research is effective when my own starts backing it up.
What about Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Insightful)
You meant to say "as aggressively as is still legal." Being a CEO does not give you the right to engage in extortion or to make untrue statements.
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:2, Insightful)
This has gone far enough... (Score:0, Insightful)
Unreal (Score:4, Insightful)
Rule #1 - if you stand to gain from this claim, it's going to have to be verified by a neutral third party and proper research, because we don't trust you.
"Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal."
There it is, in black and white. War.
"Basically the GPL is countering U.S. Copyright law. Is IBM on the side of free software while they are one of the largest IP and IT firms in the world trying to protect their own patents and copy rights? It's just the most bizarre juxtaposition... . They're supporting something that's very unfriendly to copyrights."
What??? Has this guy even READ the GPL? The GPL rests entirely on copyright law! It's just doing something that isn't normally done by commercial types. RTFLicense. This guy sounds like he needs to pry apart copyright and profit in his brain.
"Underneath all this is hard-core capitalism."
Welcome to the powerful world of volunteers. Kernal aside, a lot of the end user work in Linux is not by companies. If a company or an industry gets messed up enough, they just might find themselves competing with volunteers. Welcome to your nightmare - night of the undead competition.
"We just said we were going to start investigating IP issues, and IBM said, 'You're just giving Bill Gates an early Christmas present.' Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about? This was the immediate reaction at IBM and the open source guys. Unfortunately for them, it's just not reality."
If this guy is this clueless he has no business being a CEO in the software industry. Whatever their intent, the net result is indeed early Christmas in Redmond.
"To the extent that we have to take [Linux] down and put it on its back, we're fully prepared and willing to do that."
Indeed. I don't SCO is ready to face what that would mean - the rise of GNU Hurd. Whatever we may think about Richard Stallman, if SCO somehow puts this through there's going to be a retreat to the hard line FSF position on a lot of fronts, and GNU Hurd in full bloom on L4 might be more than any of the unix guys are ready for. SCO might find itself utterly irrelevant, on Linux IP or SCO Unix. Hardware wasn't ready for microkernels a decade ago, and microkernels weren't ready for prime time. But if we have to start fresh, to avoid any possible "IP" contamination, they're gonna find themselves wishing they had never said anything at all. Most operating system research hasn't been implimented practically over the last few decades. Wanna find out what the future is like, today?
Re:200 million dollars???Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
See
Some battles should be faught on principal.. even if it hurts a bit on the short term.
This is one of them.
It Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is based on copyright law. It's solid. A lot of very smart people spent a lot of time working on it, and it has been around in the wild for a long time as well. Nothing SCO can do will overturn that.
And even - if we play devil's advocate for a second - if SCO managed to somehow overturn the GPL, then the copyrights revert to the original authors and they STILL cannot steal it. And in the meantime, Stallman and the FSF will go to work on GPL Next Generation that patches whatever hole managed to get punched in it.
The Code Is Out There. It cannot be made to go away, and more importantly, the culture of Free Software/Open Source is established and entrenched. If necessary, Linux could be re-written from scratch and the project would carry on.
It's not going to come to that... but even in the worst possible case for us, SCO cannot stop us. At best, it can only slow things down.
What you are seeing and hearing are the first of the death throes of the former Big Players. Microsoft's death will likely be even more messy... but it doesn't matter in the end. The horse carriage makers and sailing shipbuilders died hard too.
We really are invincible - that's what has these people so scared. The only question is "when?" and... well, who cares? If you're reaping the benefits of Linux, then YOU have already won. So it takes a little while longer to make it to everone. *shrug* Big deal. When victory is inevitable, don't complain that it doesn't arrive fast enough.
Personally, I'm thanking my lucky stars that the first big opponent in the battle between Big Business Proprietary Software and Free Software - the case that is likely to set all kinds of precidents - is against an opponent so painfully and obviously in the wrong. They're centered around a *stock scam* fer crissakes, and they're abusing the judges. Read Groklaw for a taste of just how poorly this battle is being fought by the "other side" and how well by "our side".
We could have wound up fighting somebody much, much smarter with a better case, purer, and uncontaminated with by market foolishness. Instead, we got SCO. That's cause for celebration in my book.
DG
Checking the Sources - Is Chris Sontag lying? (Score:2, Insightful)
Later some of the Linux people said that code shouldn't have been there, Bruce Perens said it was development problem and 'we've taken it out.' My analogy is [that's] like a bank robber with posse in pursuit swinging back by the bank and throwing the money back in...
From Bruce Perens website [perens.com]:
of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.
Where did Bruce Perens say "we've taken it out"? On the contrary, he points out that SCO didn't own one block of code and the other is under a valid license.
So is Chris Sontag lying, or am I in error?
Not just a hypocrite... (Score:2, Insightful)
If he reasons like that, then he can't reason at all.
In the same article, he virtually admits in so many words that the company has no value or merit of its own, and that its stock is built on the FUD put out by David Boies. An overt admission that your company is a house of cards isn't what I would call a great business plan.
Re:My impressions (Score:5, Insightful)
So he has no problems with Free-beer style software. He has problems with the GPL. He also said that the GPL can be fine, "if it's modified to be more business freindly".
What the *hell* does "giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it" have to do with "the GPL must be modified"?
At the *very most* SCO can prove that IBM really stole source code and put it in Linux, and then in some strange FANTASY this would lead to SCO owning all of Linux, or Linux being crippled when all that code gets summarily ripped out.
I don't think either thing will happen, since I don't think SCO has a very good case.
But in NO WAY does any of this have anything to do with the validity of the GPL.
Did you READ the interview? He said "If you distribute a proprietary product on a CD with Linux, you must GPL your proprietary product." Or words to taht effect.
Tell THAT to nVidia.
McBride is lying deliberately, or seriously deluded, or seriously misinformed. Whatever else about the case holds, weak or strong, the GPL isn't going anywhere.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:1, Insightful)
Any manager I've ever had who used the phrase "at the end of the day" was always, always, a complete idiot.
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the legal system ruled it was a monopoly etc., but it was the political system that let them get away with it.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Always Wondered (Score:2, Insightful)
i don't count issuing driving licenses as mass murder either, so why should i count drug dealing?
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
If she'd just burned herself a little, nobody would have given a shit. This was coffee that was heated to physically harmfull levels. Trying to drink it would have raised blisters on your tongue. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?
Re:Always Wondered (Score:4, Insightful)
nothing to worry about (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who disputes this please state which of the following facts you object to:
- Copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide, for a limited time, who should and who should not copy their work.
- Without explicit permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent, it would be an offence to make and distribute copies - whether verbatim or modidied - of a copyrighted work.
- Section 1 of the GPL gives users explicit permission to distribute verbatim copies as per (2) above provided that certain conditions are met.
- Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL give users explicit permission to make and distribute modified copies and derivative works as per (2) above provided that certain conditions are met.
You may already have certain fair dealing rights in relation to software licenced under the GPL, but such rights vary from one jurisdiction to another. Many copyright holders don't give out permission so freely, but the law doesn't stop you letting other people copy your work if you want them to. All that could ever possibly happen from the GPL coming to court would be vindication for the GPL. Contrast that with certain EULAs being tested in court. The MS EULA, for instance, would almost certainly be laughed out of UK or German courts. That would hurt the GPL's credibility, but it wouldn't do Microsoft any favours either.If IBM, or anyone, has knowingly placed source code in the Linux kernel {and therefore subjected it to the GPL} without having the right to, then they have violated copyright law. This will have to be debated in court, and then the disputed code will have to come to light, otherwise the case will be summarily dismissed. The Kernel Developers - who can show that they have acted in good faith and exercised due diligence at every stage - will then be able to remove any infringing code. In the unlikely event that the kernel developers are ordered to pay damages, they will have the right to sue whoever committed the original infringement. However, such damages are likely to be for a nominal sum {$1?} on account of SCO's refusal to show the code in question sooner.
And if the unthinkable happens - if, and it could only ever happen by some massive brain-fart, the GPL is ruled invalid, the disputed source code is not shown and Linux is declared illegal in all versions - then there is always FreeBSD, already proven not to be SCO's property.
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, however, that Mickey D's was liable for this. I don't agree, however, that stupidity should be rewarded.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:2, Insightful)
I have wondered that myself. Although McBride makes every possible effort to come off as a greedy, money-grubbing weasel, I have come to believe that the truth is that he is just too dumb to know what SCO really and truly owns.
I suspect that he thinks that ownership of the source code of Sys V means that SCO has total and sole ownership of every single line of code contained therein.
A person following that (specious) line of reasoning would leap to the conclusion that anyone else who was using the same lines of code had obviously copied it... because he owns his code - he has papers to "prove" it.
Now admittedly, SCO's repeated failure to identity even a single line of supposedly infinging code is not the action of an honest litigant, but I suppose he could be both stupid AND a weasel.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Insightful)
This just isn't true and seems to have grown into another one of those self-replicating Slashdot myths. A CEO only has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. Whether that is aggresive or passively and frugaly is not a matter of law. Shareholders are welcome to vote out execs who's methods they don't agree with but they only have recourse to the law if the exec(s) act _against_ the interests of the company, whether to line their own pockets or those of another company. In other words they would generally have to act fraudulently to be legally culpible. Losing or making money, and the speed or agressiveness with which they do it is a matter purely between shareholders and execs.
Re:dmca? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my opinion that Darl et al will argue that: because the GPL requires a licensee of GPL code to give up the rights they have under copyright law to their additions/derivatives (instead of giving up money) then it is not an allowable license.
It's total bollocks when you think about it - after all, any copyright owner gives up rights they have under copyright law when they accept money from a publisher! However, that's my tuppence (like 2 cents, but English).
Justin.
Experimenting with different scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
I go to court, suing the maker of the teapot: I would get laughed out of the court.
- You come to my house, boil water and _you_ pour it on my lap, I would sue you and get damages.
- You come to my house, boil water, and _I_ pour it on my lap.
I go to court, suing you for boiling that water: I would get laughed out of court.
Change of scenario...
Instead of me (a man), assume I am an elderly woman.
Instead of my house, assume this takes place in a car.
You (still) work at McDonalds.
You boil water, I pour it on my lap.
???
Profit
Re:Clueless! (Score:3, Insightful)
Here it comes: -1, Flamebait
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh...wait...
Products should do what they are expected to do. If by NOT doing what they are expected to do they can have an injurious result, the manufacturers should fix it. If they blatantly refuse, they should be penalized. Just because it's a lady in a car with hot coffee doesn't make it any different than Monty Python's candies with Lark's Vomit. It shouldn't say, with Lark's Vomit, there should be a bloody big sign that says WARNING LARK'S VOMIT.
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
As the parent poster mentioned, and you seem to have ignored, much of the treatment involved skin grafts to her inner thighs and sexual parts. If you consider having McDonald's pay somebody to scrub the remains of scalded flesh from your genitals and inner thighs to be a "reward", then I suppose your post is quite on-topic, since you'd probably get quite a lot of pleasure from paying SCO their $699 per CPU.
If not, you're a troll, because calling an 80-year-old woman "stupid" because she spilled some coffee while trying to remove the lid is just plain asinine. I've known and dealt with many older people, and it is quite common among people who are more advanced in years not to have the steadiest hands. Would you call anyone with a MedicAlert badge an idiot as well, since they may fall and need assistance? This was an elderly woman, and you condemn her for her physical problems.
She didn't sue because she spilled her coffee. She sued because of the third-degree burns which resulted from McDonald's decision to keep the coffee at a dangerous temperature.
Re:Okay, "paranoid" post, but worth a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM does sell software, but primarily as a way to leverage their sales of hardware and services. Not that they don't make any money on software, it's more a means to an end for them and they happen to make a little coin along the way....
Re:It Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Insightful)
It is evident to me that Darl, in his constant reactionary responses, has no clue about the legal lanscape he is working in. He formed his opinions not by reason, but by greed. It appears that he is finally finding out what he is truly fighting. It may be too late to back out now.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the same at *all*. A lawyer who defends a mass murderer is almost always appointed by the court. This lawyer is there to ensure that the legal rights of the defendant are secured. It's a basic and fundamental part of how our legal system works. With this in mind, it's easy to be vigorous in defending the legal rights of somebody you detest. It's not self-interest, it's moral duty. On the other hand, McBride is in a different ballpark altogether. Here's somebody who's clearly seeking personal gain at other's expense. We're talking about something worse than a scum-sucking lawyer... the PR man!
You make a good point. I have met many public defenders and frequent pro-bono lawyers who absolutely believed in the system and were quite moral and ethical. Their trick is to tell the client first thing "I don't care if you did it or not. Don't even tell me, because it's not important." But then there's the other kind of defense attorney-- the kind like my cousin Archie-- who use dirty tricks* and courtroom shenanigans to win cases. My cousin is an evil bastard lawyer who is incapable and/or unwilling to see the difference between right and wrong, insofar as it applies in the courtroom. A lot of corporate executives are cut from the same cloth, it seems. I think Darl McBride doesn't even know and probably doesn't care if his techs can come up with proof of IP infringement; he's going let them deal with that issue if it goes to court. He is, as you say, the worst kind of scum: a PR man.
*ask a hostile witness a string of questions that have been gone over before, all of them with "yes" answers. After 20 boring minutes of that, slip in the question "is it possible the gun you saw in my client's hand could have been a toy gun?" and when the unsuspecting witness says "yes....i mean NO" because he was expecting another "yes" question, pounce upon this engineered incident as evidence of "witness uncertainity" and get your scumbag armed robber client a lesser sentence. eeeeeeeeevil......