Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Government Operating Systems Software The Courts Unix News

More Damning SCO Evidence At Groklaw 404

Posted by timothy
from the damn-damn-damn dept.
An anonymous reader writes "There's a very interesting story up at Groklaw right now. PJ reports on new evidence that Chris Hellwig, a SCO employee, contributed code to SMP, XFS, and JFS and did so with the knowledge of his supervisor." Groklaw is thorough, and this is another good example of just quite how thorough.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Damning SCO Evidence At Groklaw

Comments Filter:
  • conspiracy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:01PM (#7614237) Journal
    If it is possible to prove conspiracy, it SCO will be left without any recourse in regard to its so called "intellectual property," which Novell still owns... Also, if conspiracy is proven, SCO, and its board, will face criminal, as well as civil penalties.
  • by Lead Butthead (321013) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:02PM (#7614239) Journal
    "This is a Linux country; On a quiet night, you can hear SCO and its legal case cracking under the weight of its ever mounting lies."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:02PM (#7614240)
    error selecting database
    • by Anonymous Coward
      error selecting database

      Sometimes I worry if I've made an error when selecting a database.

      MySQL seems to be widely deployed, but has only recently been getting relatively important features found in other RDBMS systems. Postgres seems to have the features that MySQL lacks, but if its so great, why isn't anyone using it. (Of course, don't ask a Postgres zealot that question. You'll never hear the end of their object of obsession is so underappreciated. They're worse than Python programmers.) Then of cours

  • what!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meatpopcicle (460770) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:04PM (#7614252) Homepage
    If this is true and is proven to be true, heads will roll, namely SCO's.

    After all this, I can't believe that this has come out, it doesn't surprise me in this day and age of sleazy business tactics, but this is really low. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    I hope the FBI, DoJ and Stock Exachange Commission get involved now as it looks like pumpndump, Fraud, extortion, and slander to me.

    • No so surprising (Score:5, Informative)

      by arevos (659374) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:03PM (#7614657) Homepage
      Similar thing happened with AT&T and BSD, IIRC. AT&T claimed that their code was in BSD. It went to court. It emerged that it was AT&T that had taken code from BSD, rather than the other way round. AT&T settled for an undisclosed amount.
    • Re:what!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:23AM (#7615557)
      >I hope the FBI, DoJ and Stock Exachange Commission get involved now as it looks like pumpndump, Fraud, extortion, and slander to me

      Like the FBI and DOJ and SEC are doing now??

      They're not doing ANYTHING about corporate crime, even AFTER they found conspiracy emails at Enron detailing how to bring plants on and off-line in such a fashion as to inflate prices (there never was a shortage).

      The ONLY reason you're hearing about new scandals on Wall Street is due to the New Jersey state investigations.. the "feds" have tried to ignore this for as long as they can. (Hell, the feds ignored the Phoenix Memo, so why should this surprise anyone. Fucking traitors).

  • Mr Hellwig (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:05PM (#7614264)
    Christoph Hellwig has been working with Linux since about 1995, dealing with kernel-related issues much of the time. He has been invloved in many Open Source projects, raging from small fixes to major contributions.

    He is in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree according to the Bitkeeper statistics (which he hasn't faked himself but still should be taken with care).

    After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution. Last year he joined the fileystem and storage group at SGI and is focussing on XFS for Linux now.



    http://www.ukuug.org/bios+profiles/CHellwig.shtm l

    • by k98sven (324383) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:44PM (#7614548) Journal
      It seems statments from the man himsel are rare, but here [google.com] are several interesting comments from Hellwig himself on the case.. (there are several others in the same thread.)

      I feel sorry for the guy.. like so many other linux contributors caught up in this BS..

      "Most of that stuff is also bullshit. The folks in IBM LTC that work
      onm the kernel are mostly ex Sequent, not ex AIX folks. Now
      Sequent also had a SVR4 source license for Dynix/PTX, but in fact
      most of the scalability changes in SVR4.2 SM / ES actually come from
      Sequent! (Just take a look at the Authors of the VFS and VM design
      documents for SVR4.2 ES / MP).

      AIX OTOH was only developed with a SVR3 source license up to AIX4,
      and neverless the actual kernel does not resemble SVR3 or SVR4 at
      all, and although I'm not sure I think they even only used it for userland
      not the kernel.

      AIX5L (that project Monterey) had additional components licenses from
      SCO UnixWare like procfs or bfs - but IBM has very strict policies
      that the AIX5 and Linux groups basically don't communicate. For example
      I was involved in the JFS/Linux project which is very similar to the JFS2
      in AIX5L because they're both based on JFS in OS/2 - when there were
      bugs found in the old OS/2 codebase they weren't able to inform the
      AIX folks about it or send patches. Similarly I wasn't able to get
      information about the layout used for Posix ACL on AIX when I started to
      implement those for Linux."

    • Re:Mr Hellwig (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:20PM (#7618931) Homepage
      That indicates inadequate research by Groklaw, they present (by implication) his work on XFS as evidence that SCO are involved in this area. In reality, this is what he has been doing since he turned his back on that mob. Yes - I know they give his two SGI e-mail addresses but in reality, this has nothing to do with SCO at all.

      In other parts of the document, they take the presence of his contributions to mean that SCO was still involved recently. Wrong.

      The older stuff where he had an e-mail address belonging to SCO / Caldera is good, though.
  • Internet archive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bstadil (7110) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:05PM (#7614265) Homepage
    There is a major source of information about what SCO did and didn't do at the Internet Archive site.

    Look here [archive.org] and enjoy SCO's own word on how they supported and contributef to Linux. Year 2000 is the best.

    Quote from May 2000 [archive.org]

    A corporate sponsor of Linux International, SCO has always supported open standards, UNIX Systems and server-based technologies and solutions that benefit business computing. Our engineers have continuously participated in the Open Source movement, providing source code such as lxrun, and the OpenSAR kernel monitoring utility.

    Compare this to the legal filing they made here a few days ago telling the Judge that they never contributed Code.

    • by X (1235) <x@xman.org> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:08PM (#7614285) Homepage Journal
      That of course was a different company. The name is the same, but it is otherwise not the same corporate entity.
      • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:56PM (#7614613)


        > That of course was a different company. The name is the same, but it is otherwise not the same corporate entity.

        Yeah, one of the more curious side effects of our IP and corporate laws is that you can buy dead or dying companies and then sue someone as if the damage had been done to you. You can essentially buy the damage; I'm surprised damage isn't being traded in the futures markets.[*]

        And it's too bad I can't go down to the retirement home, buy up a bunch of people dying from lung cancer, and then sue the tobacco companies. I need some cash for a new 64-bit computer.

        [*] Of course, IMO it's equally odd that you can buy or sell liabilities just as you can damages. When you step back and look at things as they are, it sometimes seems that we live in Bizarro World.

        • Buying damage (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:48PM (#7614905) Homepage Journal
          Sure, you can buy a dead or dying company and sue as if the damage had been done to you, but...

          You just bought the company, and not only do you get the parts you wanted, you get the other parts, too. Just ask look into buying former/current property used for dry cleaning. Simpler yet, buy property with asbestos insulation.

          Perhaps the new SCO bought the old SCOs damage, but they also bought the old SCOs actions wrt Open Source, including Christoph Hellwig's contributions, and all the implications thereof.

          My other hope in this current chunk of mess, aside from SCO getting what it deserves, is that Hellwig doesn't suffer for any of this. Not to neglect the rest of the Open Source community, but it may well end up with Hellwig being at the eye of the storm.
      • Re:Internet archive (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bagheera (71311) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:00PM (#7614641) Homepage Journal
        Without rehashing all the corporate history of the SCO/Caldera legacy, I can only say "Are you sure?" I don't believe they can lay claim to the SCO name, IP, assets, etc., and still claim "But that's not really us." They may not be under the same control or operating under the same business model, but they are still SCO.

        It would be kind of like DaimlerChrysler claiming they never made the Plymouth Aries K. They certainly didn't in modern times, of course. But they acquired what used to be Chrysler Corp., who owned Plymouth, who made the K. The legacy came with the purchase. But, to add a nice SCO twist to this whimsical example, let's imagine DC is sueing all surviving Aries K owners for not paying a mendatory re-engine fee to become a Mercedes. "You didn't really buy that Plymouth from us, so you don't actually own it."

        Ok, so maybe it is a stupid analogy . . . Kinda like the whole SCO suit.

        • by cdunworth (166621) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @11:53PM (#7615340)
          I don't think it would even matter if they could claim "that's not really us". If some previous holder of the SysV source code rights knowingly contributed their "derivative works" (JFS, NUMA, etc.) under the GPL, the game is up -- whether that is the same company as today's holder or not.
  • One Amazing Lady (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rixstep (611236) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:09PM (#7614292) Homepage
    No, this is not new, but PJ continues to impress.
  • by thenextpresident (559469) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:10PM (#7614298) Homepage Journal
    You remember when SCO first made these claims, and you had a bunch of people running around saying "they might be right, they might be right...", and basically defending SCO?

    Where are they now?
  • by mauryisland (130029) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:13PM (#7614323) Homepage
    Her efforts in putting together this site, with the participation of so many knowledgeable contributers is fascinating, and I'm sure it's valuable to those who oppose SCO's legal antics. I find the site to be generally "wide and deep" (thanks, Darl), and I'll wager that the people at SCO take very little humor from it. I wonder if the legal teams at IBM and Red Hat find it interesting? It's seems that there's a huge amount of free legal and technical research being undertaken.

    Pamala Jones has my early vote for "Linux Booster of the Year for 2003".
  • <voice type="Mr. Burns">Excellent!</voice>

    Slowly, the foolishness of this entire activity will be seen, and then McBride can be sued into non-existence for taking far too much time with these stupidities. He must be made to pay, a la Kenneth Lay, for his hubris.

    • Um... (Score:5, Funny)

      by dmaxwell (43234) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:43PM (#7614881)
      He must be made to pay, a la Kenneth Lay, for his hubris.

      The only problem with that is that Kenneth Lay hasn't paid. At most, they're going to hang a minor board executive and pin the whole thing on him.

      I'd rather see him pay a la King Louis XIV.

      swiiiiisssh! thump! spurt!
  • In its Supplemental Responses to IBM's Second Interrogatories and Second Requests for Documents, [groklaw.net] SCO gave this answer:

    "Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information as to whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code in question or otherwise made it available to the public, SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution."

    Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.

    SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?

    Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported [groklaw.net] on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:

    "Here [geocrawler.com] is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit: 'I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it.'

    "And here [geocrawler.com] he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:

    "'I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved :)

    "'First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team.'

    "He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.

    "Here [prnewswire.com] is the press release when SCO in 2002 released 'SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family' and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page [216.239.39.104]lists JFS as one of its features. . . .

    "They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed [iu.edu]as making five contributions to the kernel."

    And he is listed on this page [ibm.com] of JFS contributors. Here [ibm.com] is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h

  • by jms258 (569015) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:16PM (#7614347)
    how long does SCO intend to bang its head against this particular wall?

    i suppose this does pose a threat to linux in terms of leaving a bad taste in vendors' mouths concerning but there really is absolutely no way SCO is going to shut us down.

    even if SCO gives linux and gnu somewhat of a bad reputation, we already have major players in the industry who are committed to supporting linux (ibm, novell, sun). and by the time all of this bullshit blows over, linux will be even more robust and marketable, and our detractors will soon find themselves knocking down our doors once again to profit from our technology.

    really the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement ... to me this seems like an underhanded attempt to knock the wind out of our sails, regardless of whether or not our ship sinks. fortunately the open source movement does not seem to attract developers that quit at the first sign of difficulty, so i am optimistic that sco will fail even in this capacity.

    but really the most appalling thing about the situation is sco's utter lack of common sense; it makes me wonder how they thought they were going to win in the first place (see below). how do they expect their argument to hold up in court when they STILL HAVE NOT YET PRODUCED ANY HARD EVIDENCE?!?

    darl mcbride: "well ... i was raised on a farm ... i rode plenty of horses in my day, let me tell you ... and the one thing i learned from shucking corn and milking cows was ALWAYS to claim that the other guy's ranch was really MY ranch, even though the other guy built his ranch all by himself from the ground up and never asked me for any help."

    SCO, if you are reading this, pack your bags, go home. to quote eddie murphy (quoting richard pryor): "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."

    we all get the point that you don't like us, but unless you are going to actually do something about it, piss off.
    • by potpie (706881) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:24PM (#7614411) Journal
      it makes me wonder how they thought they were going to win in the first place

      I don't really think they had much of a chance to begin with, but because of economic downturns they decided they wouldn't be going down without a fight, or at least a gasping, death-throw-like struggle... like waving your arms and legs when you're falling off a cliff. It won't help you at all, but hey- why not? Unfortunatley, they decided to fight the bad fight.

      Despite all this, I agree with your position of our survival wholeheartedly. Because of the diversity of contributors, Open Source is like sand- they can try to scoop it up all they want, but it'll just slip through their fingers.
    • by dtfinch (661405) * on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:35PM (#7614483) Journal
      Since they have always refused to provide evidence, the general theory has been that their entire plan from the beginning was to pump and dump their stock, not to win a lawsuit.
    • by WaltFrench (165051) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @11:36PM (#7615185)
      ...the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement...

      Let me nominate distraction as the biggest risk. Whenever one has had to circle the wagons, the resumed journey is never the same. A wonderful model of meritocracy may be forever changed into a quasi corporate structure -- at the extreme, leading to a world where Legal has to vet everything before its release.

      This needn't be a negative, just acknowledgement that linux must evolve in an unexpected way, in order to survive and prosper in this unexpected New World. Still, I shed a tear.
  • by Dwindlehop (62388) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:26PM (#7614420) Homepage
    Groklaw is thorough, and this is another good example of just quite
    how thorough.

    In sharp contrast to /.

  • quotes from Chris.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by deego (587575) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:27PM (#7614433)
    I wonder why Chris Hellwig himself does not reply.

    I googled for what he has to say about anything concerning the SCO mess:

    1 [google.com]

    2 [google.com].. same as 1

    3 [google.com]

  • Overall Picture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KoolDude (614134) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:40PM (#7614516)

    Of course, there is lot of evidence against SCO and they will lose their case. But the fact is, even they know it. This whole SCO suit is all about keeping Linux from rapid adoption using FUD and legal tactics. With this strategy, Microsoft and allies have found a way to keep Linux away from the mainstream adopters. What's to stop Micosoft from using another puppet after SCO has lost it's case ? They've got enough money to throw around and huge incentive to do it.

    SCO losing the case won't change anything. It's quite easy to bring up another entirely different legal issue concerning Linux and use FUD and media to publicize it. It takes at least 2 years to resolve such a case and Linux adoption will be affected for that period. Whoever said Microsoft has no answer to the Linux movement is merely ignorant, IMHO. Microsoft has laid out the tactics and played the first move. They are taking advantage of the weaknesses in the judicial system to keep legal issues concerning Linux afloat for a long time. What shoud the community do against these dirty tricks ?

    Redhat's fund towards fighting future legal challenges is a step in the right direction. What we need is some way to certify Linux as free from copyright infringements and patent issues. A consortium (a division of OSDL, may be) can be formed to exclusively monitor the legal aspects of Linux Development process. A request for copyrights of all the code gone into the Linux kernel can pre-empt further copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure about the practicality of these steps, but we need to develop a sense of trust in the minds of mainstream adopters about the linux development process and other legal issues. Feel free to toss in your ideas.
    • Look, I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but how is this insightful? This is another tinfoil hat theory that has no real proof to back it up. Sure, it could be true, but I do NOT condone this whole blame it all on Microsoft because they happen to benefit movement.

      Grow up. Remember just yesterday [slashdot.org] there was discussion about how a) open source advocates love a good fight and b) they always blame everything on Microsoft?

      Guess what? It's apparently true.
      • by Malcontent (40834) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:33PM (#7614823)
        "This is another tinfoil hat theory that has no real proof to back it up."

        Well MS was the first company to pay SCO a ton of money to bankroll this thing. SUN was the second. These companies have repeatedly said awful things about linux and open source sometimes reffering to OSS developers as communists and cancer.

        It makes perfect sense to presume that MS is behind all this. It's just like them to something like this and they even hinted at doing something like this in one of the haloween documents.

        If it walks like a duck ... well you know the rest.
    • by xant (99438)
      Personally I lean toward the "SCO Upper Management is a bunch of fucking loonies" theory. Here's an article that puts concrete numbers on the effect SCO is having on linux adoption.

      http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/archives/000194 .a sp

      16% may be a big number or a small number, depending on your point of view, but it's not what I'd call a palpable blow to Linux.
    • Re:Overall Picture (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darnok (650458)
      > Of course, there is lot of evidence against SCO
      > and they will lose their case. But the fact is,
      > even they know it. This whole SCO suit is all
      > about keeping Linux from rapid adoption using FUD
      > and legal tactics.

      No, the whole SCO suit is about keeping the stock price rising over 4 consecutive quarters.

      If McBride et al can manage this, then they qualify for some huge payouts. They're currently midway through their 3rd quarter of rises, so there's somewhere between 4 and 6 months to go.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @09:48PM (#7614568) Homepage Journal
    Just because its a 'supervisor' doesn't mean the legal department sanctioned the 'code release'.

    Unless you get specific permission from the actual 'company', the actions of any individual can still be considered improper. ( excluding the board, or CEO ,etc.. I'm talking 'employees' here, regardless of position )
    • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Idou (572394) * on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:50PM (#7614927) Journal
      IANAL (did you forget YOUR IANAL?), but I know that if a delivery boy were to crash into my car, during his delivery, I could not only sue him but his company, as well (did the legal department sanction that crash?). I also know that an "x-buyer" for company has the "appearance" of authority for up to 2 years. What does that mean? Even if he doesn't work for the company anymore, he can still order from suppliers and the company will be liable. The company has to notify each supplier or public announce the guy no longer works there. The law doesn't care what GOES INSIDE THE COMPANY. The law cares about what appears to be the situation to your average reasonable individual. Employees are the "agents" of the company. Though their scope is "narrow", if they act within the scope of their employment, it is as if the company is acting, itself. Legal department != company. Otherwise, the legal department would just go on break, and the company would never be liable for anything . . .
      • Re:Really? (Score:3, Funny)

        by corbettw (214229)
        Legal department != company. Otherwise, the legal department would just go on break, and the company would never be liable for anything . . .

        Careful, someone in Congress might get some ideas.
    • by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:55PM (#7614960) Homepage Journal
      Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It's called the doctrine of 'apparant authority'. If Hellwig and his supervisor acted on behalf of SCO, presented themselves as being representatives of SCO, and there was no reason for Linus not to believe this, they are acting for SCO.

      Now, go back and read the article(s). SCO was advertising (on their own or via UnitedLinux) many of the features they are now suing over. They knew what was going on. They condoned it. They are engaging in barratry.

      IANAL; clearly, neither are you.
      • They've only filed one legal case.

        Just one.

        They've said that they'd file more.

        Lots more.

        Maybe lots and lots more.

        But they've only filed one so far.

        Barratry means filing multiple cases to harass someone. Like if I drag you into court on some charge (real or not). Then I file another one against you. Then another one.

        It would be VERY INTERESTING if SCO did file more claims and a judge ruled that SCO was attempting to harass "Linux".
  • by Snorpus (566772) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:19PM (#7614756)
    Chris H. wasn't the only SCO employee to make significant contributions to Linux. The "members only" area at Groklaw contains an "article in progress", which will demonstrate that another SCO employee made *significant* contributions to the effort of developing the SMP kernel.

    Without a kernel debugger, developing an SMP kernel becomes increasingly difficult. Register at Groklaw, or wait till the article is published for all the nitty-gritty details.

  • by nudicle (652327) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @10:45PM (#7614891)
    These discoveries are all great for the side of what is good and right, but unless I am mistaken (which I have been plenty of times in the past...), all this looks devastatingly bad but is only necessarily so if, when SCO reveals specifically, as in line by line, what code it's formally claiming to have a beef with.

    Which is to say, couldn't they conceivably claim issues with JCS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP code that's simply separate from what their boy Hellig was working near?

    I realize that either way their argument is crap but it, if they are going to pull something like that, it's crap that they can still, albeit insultingly, disingenuously, and vexatiously, hold onto their claims and simply fail to admit what obvious liars they are?

    Just wondering.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @11:12PM (#7615045)
    I have always thought it a cheap trick when a story creates a character that is so utterly unbelievably evil that all you what to see is them crushed under the grinding wheels of a gravel truck and extruded thru a rock crusher. And then of course they do in the end just to satisfy the primitive parts of your brain. This I believe is the hallmark of an inferior story and the definition of poor literature.

    However here we have in real life several characters (that is SCO's upper managerment and new found lawyer buddys) that fit this description neatly. So let hurry this story line along - I will go pop some more popcorn.
  • by puzzled (12525) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @11:46PM (#7615279) Journal

    "Ai! Ai!" wailed Legolas, "A Balrog is come!"

    s/Legolas/Darl/

    I don't think a picture of PJ has ever been published, but I'm definitely getting this visual of 60'+ tall, wreathed in smoke, with a lash of flame close at hand for when fools trespass.

    Keep up the good work PJ - and where is that 'donate via paypal' button on your site?

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday December 02, 2003 @11:59PM (#7615386) Homepage
    ...that SCO never had a real case. They were just trying to kick up legal dust in hopes of someone giving them money to shut up and go away. This is little more than further confirmation of what the rest of us already knew.

    SCO's case was never based on fact, they were using litigation as a business tool. A republican behavior becoming all too popular these days. And what's the downside? DirecTV sues the innocent along with the guilty and who's stopping them? And don't get me started on RIAA. And when it comes to fraud look at Enron, WorldCom and Putman. Millions of people bilked out of billions of dollars and how many have gone to jail? Three or four? McBride's playing the odds that even if the ploy doesn't work...and it's safe to say it's probably not going like they hoped...the company was dead anyway and their chances of facing any serious prison time were slim to none. When government is in the pocket of big business lobbyists, this is the reality. Welcome to Bush World.

    Let's not take anything away from the outstanding research from Groklaw, though. That's really good work by someone there.

  • by DeepRedux (601768) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:56AM (#7615732)
    This may be a bit off-topic, but a different point of view. From CBS MarketWatch [marketwatch.com]
    Barron's quotes a Deutsche Bank analyst who said there's a chance for more "dramatic gains" in SCO's stock price, based on the company's intellectual property lawsuits that seek compensation for what SCO claims is its stolen code that's included in the widely used Linux operating system.
    Barron's is published by the Wall Street Journal; its web site is paid-only.
  • Weasel words. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jaywalk (94910) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:21PM (#7618943) Homepage
    Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information ... SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code ...
    Whenever I see something like this I immediately look for the weasel words; stuff that seems to say something on the first read, but says much less when you look close, giving the speaker a plausible escape if cornered by facts.

    I see three examples of it here. The opening phrase allows the writer to say, "Oh, I didn't think you wanted that information." The phrase "authorized, approved or knowingly released" allows the writer to respond that any releases (note they never claim not to have released the code) were not sanctioned. And, of course the big one: "the subject code." Until SCO deigns to define what code they're talking about, they can continue to claim that any releases they authorized are not the code in question.

    In spite of this, they're in for a rough time if they need to argue in front of a judge that all of Caldera's pre-lawsuit Linux work was unintentional.

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch

Working...