Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Government The Courts Software News Linux

The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326 316

Posted by Zonk
from the that's-some-impressive-evidence dept.
The Peanut Gallery writes "After years of litigation to discover what, exactly, SCO was suing about, IBM has finally discovered that SCO's 'mountain of code' is only 326 scattered lines. Worse, most of what is allegedly infringing are comments and simple header files (like errno.h). These probably aren't copyrightable for being unoriginal and dictated by externalities and aren't owned by SCO in any event. Above and beyond that, IBM has at least five separate licenses for these elements, including the GPL, even if SCO actually owned those lines of code. In contrast IBM is able to point out 700,000 lines of code, which they have properly registered copyrights for, which SCO is infringing upon if the Court rules that it repudiated the GPL."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326

Comments Filter:
  • It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...
    • by acidrain (35064) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:06AM (#18374335)
      I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for. Somebody should make it point to kernel.org, just as a lesson to the patent trolls.
      • sadly, it'll probably be bought by "Sony Computers Online"
      • by stratjakt (596332) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:23AM (#18374535) Journal
        100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).

        It would be interesting to watch SCOs stock. If it starts rising, it means investors are seeing it from their side, and seeing them as the winner here. Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
        • Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Informative)

          by sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:29AM (#18374623)
          Man...are you a shill for SCOX?

          Surely you are kidding that SCOX might win. The 326 lines of codes:

          #1 they dont hold Copyright on at ALL
          #2 are in public domain
          #3 are not even CODE!

          Where as the 700,000 lines of code IBM is counter suing over ARE owned by IBM, ARE registered to them, and pretty much IBM has them by the short hairs.

          As does Novell.

          This is emotional to a lot of people yes. But we are also highly intelligent people who know quite a bit about this and how this came to be. While we may be emotional doesnt mean we are wrong!

          Where as SCOX from day one has been wrong.

          Go shill on the Yahoo board you will find no safe harbor here.

          • by Technician (215283) on Friday March 16, 2007 @11:22AM (#18376379)
            Surely you are kidding that SCOX might win. The 326 lines of codes:

            #1 they dont hold Copyright on at ALL
            #2 are in public domain
            #3 are not even CODE!

            #4 which IBM has 5 licenses to including redistribution of the code.
            #5 the license from SCO to IBM includes warranty against lawsuit
            SCO included all the lines in their GPL'ed Linux products


        • Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Interesting)

          by badasscat (563442) <[basscadet75] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:31AM (#18374641)
          100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).

          They only win the suit if they can somehow convince the judge that none of IBM's licenses apply, including the GPL. And if they convince the judge that the GPL doesn't apply, then they are now liable for the 700,000 lines of IBM code that SCO has appropriated.

          So, no, they can't win.
        • by p3d0 (42270) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:35AM (#18374689)

          Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ha ha ha. Ha. Oh man, that's a good one.
        • by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:47AM (#18374889)
          Point 1.
          SCO was flat out lying. If I run a file comparison utility over several million lines of code, and I find 326 identical lines (most of which are things like #include ) and then say that IBM stole thousands of lines of code, I'm lying my @$$ off. It's similar to me saying you owe me a million dollars because you borrowed $5 for lunch one day. Or calling you a gay prostitute because your wife dragged you to see Brokeback Mountain. Or saying I have proof Jedi are real after watching the 'Star Wars Kid' video. (Do I really need to continue? How is gross exaggeration NOT flat out lying?)

          Point 2.
          It is interesting to watch SCO stock. My bet is that it goes down a notch, and it seems to be doing that so far today (but just barely). Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better /. posts are emotionally detached).
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by BierGuzzl (92635)
          Ya.. and those 700,000 lines of code copyrighted by IBM are mostly comments and header files anyways, and therefore unoriginal. IBM doesn't stand a chance.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cvos (716982)
          It seems that SCO and groups that backed them (Microsoft) achieved their objective. Much like a war in someone else's country, you don't have to 'win' to achieve your goals. The goal of SCO was to delay implementation of Linux by installing the fear of massive litigation into potential Linux IT purchases. For SCO/MS to win, all they needed to do was stall. The business world must move forward, even if Linux is tied up in courts.

          SCO put enough fear into huge corporations such as SUN, HP and major web ho

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dattaway (3088)
        SCO already had its last breath. Novell is now on the attack.
        • Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arth1 (260657) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:54AM (#18374991) Homepage Journal
          In the case of Novell, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

          Novell needs every penny they can get, and it wouldn't surprise me if they sell whatever rights they still have to their new bed partner, Microsoft, who is then free to go after anyone (except Novell) for allegedly copying code from both Unix and DOS/Windows to Linux.
      • Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nege (263655) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:42AM (#18374791) Journal
        I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for. Somebody should make it point to kernel.org, just as a lesson to the patent trolls.

        The internet version of severed head on a pike. I like it!
      • I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for.

        Depends on if they own or lease their digs in Utah. Usually used office furniture usually goes pretty cheap in lots. Recyclers may be interested in all the shredded paper...

      • by tobiasly (524456)
        I like apples. Especially them apples.
    • Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:28AM (#18374603)
      It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...

      It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting. Then again, Wall Street has frankly been insane in supporting this stock and I wouldn't be surprised at all by Monday or even today (early trends are actually up for the stock today) for it to be worth over a dollar a share again. I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath. A stock market that has believed against all rational thought for years that SCO has some value is unlikely to be smart enough to realize by now that the game is almost over and start getting out while they can.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KokorHekkus (986906)

        ...It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting... ...I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath

        As you suspect there isn't much hope for delisting. The stock has to be under $1 for 30 trading

        • Ehum, small correction. I got the market capitalization value wrong. It is actually $5 million, not $10 million. Which makes it even more improbable. Sorry about the mistake.
        • Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday March 16, 2007 @11:47AM (#18376853) Journal
          Relax. It's days are numbered, no matter what. What I find sad is that I doubt the SEC will really go after these guys for their pump-and-dump scam. In a just and proper world, McBride would be sitting in a jail cell and SCO's lawyers would be facing disbarrment.

          As to Wall Street's attitude, it's pretty clear that it has been wishful thinking all along. They despise open source, and Linux in particular, and despite every sign of a stock scam, they chose to back SCO on a course which can only lead to the bottom of the sewer. The investment community had been warned from the very start by the experts that SCO didn't have a case, and for Christ's sake, what kind of investment community backs a company whose sole business plan is extorting licensing fees based on highly dubious copyright claims that hadn't even be tested in court?
    • by muffen (321442)

      It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...
      Down around 1% at the moment.

      How a company with no case at all and a marketcap of 237,5M USD can be so stupid as to sue a company with a market cap of 140B USD is beyond me.
      I mean, there simply cannot be another reason than to inflate the stockprice. Five years ago they were at $40, now they are at $2.50.
      • by muffen (321442)
        Need edit :(
        Last post was wrong, was looking at the wrong stock (was looking at SCOR) :-/
    • by Secrity (742221)
      It's been under a dollar a share for the past week. How long before it gets delisted?
    • Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Informative)

      by philippic (1008271) on Friday March 16, 2007 @10:38AM (#18375665)
    • by syphax (189065)

      Congrats [yahoo.com] to anyone who shorted at $25/share- 2x in 3 years isn't bad.

  • At least the wikipedia article says so.

    Is he lying or not? If the original unix comments are in there verbatim, it sounds unlikely that it was completely original.

    I'm not saying it should be copyrightable or affect the suit at all, but it certainly bears on Linus' credibility, if he copy/pasted a header file then claimed it was a product of his genious.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AltGrendel (175092)
      Umm, maybe he typed it himself.
    • by Salsaman (141471) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:03AM (#18374297) Homepage
      Don't forget Linus had the Minix code to refer to when starting Linux. SCO claimed that this was one way Linux was an illegal derivative of Unix. However, as was pointed out by IBM and others, a simple list of #defines cannot be copyrighted.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by stratjakt (596332)
        No, I could see him writing "#DEFINE FALSE 0, #DEFINE TRUE !(FALSE)" and believe it.

        But comments are written in human language, and it's unlikely that two people phrase a complex thought th same way. If you're grading programming assignments in university, and see the exact same comments in two student's works - it pretty much tips you off to cheating.

        I don't know what Linus actually said - whether he copied from Minix, the wiki article says "Linus Torvalds, the creator and trademark holder of Linux, has d
        • by fabs64 (657132)
          comments.. are not code.

          Copying the standard "this header file defines the standard error codes used by the blah blah blah..." comment is not the same as copying code that implements those things.
        • by SnowZero (92219)
          To give you an idea what we're talking about:

          #define EPERM 1 /* Operation not permitted */
          #define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory */
          #define ESRCH 3 /* No such process */
          #define EINTR 4 /* Interrupted system call */
          #define EIO 5 /* I/O error */

          The comments aren't exactly works of art, are they? In fact its pretty much a simple expansion of the define's abbreviated name. There isn't really a human creative element here. If you pick up any UNIX standard, or the (quite free)

    • by tomknight (190939) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:11AM (#18374389) Homepage Journal
      http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312 .2/1241.html [iu.edu]

      From: Linus Torvalds
      Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 16:36:47 EST
      [snip]
      "errno.h/signal.h/ioctl.h (and they are apparently the 2.4.x versions, before we moved some common constants into "asm-generic/errno.h"), and while I haven't analyzed them, I know for a fact that
      - the original errno.h used different error numbers than "original UNIX"
      I know this because I cursed it later when it meant that doing things like binary emulation wasn't as trivial - you had to translate the error numbers.
      - same goes for "signal.h": while a lot of the standard signals are well documented (ie "SIGKILL is 9"), historically we had lots of confusion (ie I think "real UNIX" has SIGBUS at 10, while Linux didn't originally have any SIGBUS at all, and later put it at 7 which was originally SIGUNUSED.

      So to me it looks like
      - yes, Linux obviously has the same signal names and error number names that UNIX has (so the files certainly have a lot of the same identifiers)
      - but equally clearly they weren't copied from any "real UNIX"."
      [snip]
      • by tlhIngan (30335)
        And if anyone followed on, Linus says he got the values out of the Intel i386 ABI book, which would be a good place to get a lot of the comments as well. After all, a lot of the entries would be summaries from the book. And there are very few ways of saying stuff concisely. Heck, some of those values may have comments already put it!
    • Alphabetic order... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mengel (13619)
      As the IBM guy points out in the hearing (online over at Groklaw, of course) the error values are in alphabetic order with increasing integer values.

      Exactly what most people would do in building such a list of #defines...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sconeu (64226)
      Linus reaffirmed that in a story on Groklaw [groklaw.net].
  • by FlatCatInASlatVat (828700) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:04AM (#18374309)
    IBM: All your code base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by funfail (970288)
      For great justice at the court.
    • by daeg (828071) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:58AM (#18375099)
      What SCO thought would happen:

      In AD 2003, War was beginning.
      IBM: What happen!
      IBM Lawyer: Some set us up the lawsuit! We get signal.
      IBM: Main screen turn on! It's you!
      SCO: How are you gentlemen. All your code are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction.
      IBM: What you say?!
      SCO: You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha.


      What really is happening:

      IBM: All your stock are belong to us.
  • by TinBromide (921574) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:05AM (#18374321)
    i have the following code copyrighted, get out your wallets and pay up or i will sue!

    If (x){

    Now that you have seen my copyrighted code, anyone who uses the above code in their programs must pay me a nickel!!!

    Hold on, I just got a whisper from my patent lawyer, apparently some firm has trademarked the bracket ({) and my copyright is invalid. Carry on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Vexorian (959249)
      Noo! I don't want to use python all the time!
    • Lucky for you, I owe the patent on the method by which the top and bottom halves of each bracket are produced, and I reserved all trademark rights - you may proceed with your lawsuit!!!

  • Damn font (Score:3, Funny)

    by Demona (7994) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:16AM (#18374441) Homepage
    Looked like "emo.h". Which would be more than appropriate.
  • The wheel of Karma turns. Sometimes, you get roadkill.
  • by dafz1 (604262)
    SCO may have 326 lines of code IF the judge in the Novell case say that the rights to the code were transferred to SCO via the Amended Purchase Agreement.
  • by hhawk (26580) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:21AM (#18374513) Homepage Journal
    SCO was funded to do this "legal dance."

    While this maybe bad for SCO, those paying the the dance have more than got their money's worth.

    They got some really big FUD going, plus the value of major distraction slowing down anyone following the play by play.

    Clearly the long term play of MS is to get part or all of there free OS to be illegal. Illegal because they are TOOLS for ripping off copyright(s), or because they don't support legally mandated DRM, or because they they allow DRM to be by-passed, etc, etc., etc.

    The only way around this is if more and more people use it and if the big box companies like Dell and Gateway ship boxes with Linux, etc.
    • by Stumbles (602007) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:50AM (#18374939)
      Well, barring for the moment McBride is a hugely bigger idiot than all of us can possibly imagine I really cannot shake the notion the SCO strings were and have been pulled by Microsoft. I know the theory about conspiracies but without Uncle Bills fingers in the pie, none of this really makes any sense.

      It's already known McBride tried to, um persuade Novell to join this little legal foray and they told SCO to get lost. It's already known SCO was told this is not a can of worms you want to open, again IIRC by Mr. Love of Novell. There is at least one of their own employees that have said SCO KNOWINGLY contributed code to Linux and the list goes on. So either McBride is a complete boob to ignore some really sound advise or he had other motivations.

      So yeah, I know it's a bit tinfoilish to think Microsoft is simply manipulating another company via proxy but to me, right now it's the only thing that really makes much sense.

    • Yes, in the beginning this may have been enough to put some people off of linux. However, one must remember the old adage about "no publicity is bad publicity." The whole SCO case attracted quite a large deal of attention, and a lot of speculation on the legitimacy of linux and/or its licenses.

      So if IBM is able to not only rip apart SCO's claims of infringement, but possibly nail SCO with their own infringement charges, then suddenly linux's image improves dramatically. Not only that, but the "common foe"
      • by hhawk (26580)
        In the end this is great news for FOSS assuming the GPL gets' it's day in court; once proven it only gets stronger and so forth..

        I'm not convinced that people who are NOT already "in the know" about Linux, and who have "sound bite length attention span" get much from this other than (if you will) some buffer overflow leaving them w/ the sense that Linux is some how legally murky.. (not that I think it is..)
    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:40PM (#18378411) Journal

      They funded this and it backfired. In essence this is a trial by fire for linux and the GPL and so far it seems to have stood up with flying colors.

      FUD stands for Fear, uncertainty and denial. What MS absolutly does NOT want is for uncertainty about the legit nature of Linux to go away. Anymore then they want it to be made certain that the GPL is a legal license that can hold its own in court.

      In the Netherlands by a place called Oudewater was a "waag" a large scale, a person acused of witchcraft could be weighed there and if the measured weight was in correspondce with their build they would be a given a certificate that they were not a witch. The unique thing about this one is that it was not fixed. Hence nobody ever was denied a certificate for obvious reasons.

      Witchhunters HATED it, they rely on FUD since the facts offcourse are that witches do not exist. A unbiased scale that ALWAYS reports the persons true weight therefore is the enemy of their FUD.

      And the same with SCO now, they called Linux a witch and Linux has been weighed and been given a certificate. Anyone else who now calls linux a witch is going to look extremely silly and some people might well start to ask how it comes that not a single person who has been accused and weighed has been found guilty and start to question NOT the people accused but the accusers as to their true motives.

      But things don't happen fast, sucks if you are about to be burned to the stake but nowadays we don't just round up people because somebody with dubious motives tells us too. Right US of A? Right EU countries that gave the CIA free access? Right?

  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:24AM (#18374561) Homepage
    1. if
    2. else
    3. {
    4. }
    5. return;
    6. continue;
    7. break;
    8. do
    9. /*
    10. */

    Looks like SCO has the upper hand on IBM...
    • by timeOday (582209)
      Just for grins here's the code to find the most common lines in *your* code, and what I found. It seems the empty string is quite popular!

      perl -e 'while(<>){++$l{$_}} map { print "$l{$_}:\t$_" } sort {$l{$a}<=>$l{$b}} keys %l' *.h *.cc | tail

      59: #endif
      77: private:
      95: }
      98: public:
      105: };
      105:
      178: }
      289: }
      346: }
      2075:
      • Waaay OT, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Spaceman40 (565797)

        ...isn't it interesting the lines that are most common?

        I can tell that you're coding in C++ because of the private/public and the }/}; (that inconsistency has always bothered me: is it a statement or not?).

        I ran this* on the Python files of the Django [djangoproject.com] project, and got some interesting results:

        11185:
        2314: """
        1205: else:
        1063: try:
        288: pass
        269: ...
        235: Traceback (most recent call last):
        226: from django.conf import settings
        185: }
        164: )
        148: def __str__(self):

        Interesting comments:

        • Yes, that's
  • by Applekid (993327) on Friday March 16, 2007 @09:35AM (#18374691)
    I'm having visions of future SCO moves prompted by their crack legal team:

    1) Admitting an IBM model-M keyboard as evidence to the case.
    2) Calling a monkey to the stand.
    3) Yelling "objection" at random moments, even during recess.
    4) Showing the court on the doll where IBM touched them.

    Can we just throw out the case and stop with the wasting of money already?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by analog_line (465182)
      You forgot the Chewbacca defense.

      "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, IBM must pay us lots of money!"
  • Repudiate it (i.e. "strike it down") and it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

    {gawd, I am such a geek ...}
  • SCO is another poster child for the US Civil Court system to adopt a "Loser Pays" rule to interrupt the flow of ridiculous lawsuits.

    I would assume that this may conflict heavily with the current "Lawyers Always Win" effect we have now though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheoMurpse (729043)

      SCO is another poster child for the US Civil Court system to adopt a "Loser Pays" rule to interrupt the flow of ridiculous lawsuits.

      "Loser pays" is a horrible system. Small companies and individuals would never sue big corporations for fear of losing (even if their suit was valid) unless the case was a slam dunk. Furthermore, big corporations could sue whomever they want, and the defendants would settle really fast, for fear of going to court and losing and having to pay the corporation's immense, million-p

  • Holly crap! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Friday March 16, 2007 @10:29AM (#18375555) Homepage Journal
    I started reading that article, that is linked from the story without checking the url and as my eyes were just openning wider and wider with each false claim and each line of FUD I finally reached the point where I had to know who the hell wrote it and so I look up into the address bar and I see www.sco.com

    Pheew! Geez whiz, so as my blood pressure normalizes I just wanted to ask /. staff: PLEASE mark the SCO articles in a more visible manner, it's dangerous for health to read such tripe. Also can't we sue SCO for libel or something?

    I mean this is actually false information, they are knowingly lying to everyone with each breath they take.

    Just read this:

    However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress. ...
    The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. ...
    This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html [redhat.com] ).


    I mean can't Red Hat for example sue them for libel? SCO is constantly insisting that GPL is anti-copyright, while GPL is only possible because of copyright law. They are misstating what GPL is about too by insisting that GPL does not allow any proprietary use (GPL requires that a distributor of GPLed code, follows GPL procedures, this is not about use.)
    • by Aim Here (765712)
      Indeed, SCO are being sued for lying about Linux. IBM (in one of it's counterclaims) and RedHat have both sued SCO under the Lanham Act for lying about their products. It's an icing-on-the-cake thing, in that any damages awarded are likely to go unpaid, since SCO seems to owe Novell somewhere in the region of $30 million, which is about $10-15 million more than SCO is actually worth, depending on how you count it...

      Oh, and the snippet you've cut isn't actually that bad, in that the only actual lie I can see
  • It may only be 326 lines, but SCO wants statutory damages of $750.00 per character infringed.
  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Friday March 16, 2007 @10:50AM (#18375867)
    IMO: anybody who thinks otherwise does not understand the scam.

    Want to gloat about scox's share price being down, about scox not doing well financially? Fine, but remember this: scox's market cap is about twice as high now, as it was before the scam. And scox was as good as dead before the scam. Look at the financials, scox would have dead two years ago if not for this scam. Furthermore, darl and kevin mcbride are making out like bandits - each has made about two million since the scam started - not bad for small time Utah scammers. And remember, scox was a canopy company - not a real company. Canopy plays shell games with dozens of make-believe companies.

    Msft financed the scam lawsuit, and msft got a great ROI out of the deal. The scam cost msft about as much as the cost to produce one TV commercial, and msft got a ton of grade-A FUD. The scox scam is nothing but about 1% of msft's continuing FUD campaign against Linux. Msft wants potential Linux users to know that Linux is a legal mine field. Msft also wants potential linux comtributers to know that they are risking a msft sponsered bogo-suit. Remember: just because the lawsuit is bogus doesn't mean the lawsuit won't cost over $50M in legal fees - and who wants that? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just not contribute to linux?
     
  • by msauve (701917) on Friday March 16, 2007 @10:55AM (#18375941)
    from the transcript of the hearing:

    "THE COURT: Where does this illustration come from in 46? This cup with all this money?

    MR. MARRIOTT: Someone on our team made that up, Your Honor."
  • Is a ridiculous waste of time and money that hurts not only the tax payer, but countless businesses that have been scared away from linux when it might have been a better option for their needs, and the businesses that would have supported that choice. Yes, it brought money to Microsoft's pockets, the pockets of lawyers, and the pockets of MS-related consultants and techies, but ultimately it has been a frivolous lawsuit that's cost an inestimable fortune.

    SCO should have to pay a lot more than court costs.

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...