IBM Subpoenas SCO Investors, Analysts
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:18 PM
from the tooth-and-mail dept.
from the tooth-and-mail dept.
Bigfishbowl writes "Forbes has an interesting article about IBM sending subpoenas to large SCO investors in an effort to compel discovery. An IBM spokesman says IBM is frustrated by SCO's reluctance to produce proof of its allegations. '"It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court," he says.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
IBM Subpoenas SCO Investors, Analysts
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 507 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday November 29 2003, @03:51AM)
The question is whether a "Microsoft is behind this whole sham" argument will be as well-received in a court room as it has been on Slashdot.
I am so not a lawyer that I don't even know whether it would be admissible.
Or, for that matter, whether my analysis is entirely incorrect.
COUNTERSUE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday March 10 2006, @04:51PM)
It is illegal and damaging to use the civil court system to intimidate people if you have no good reason to believe the law is behind you (like if you LIED about the facts used to support your complaint). A countersuit is in order, but who to sue?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.arrancar.com/)
Ouch, some time ago I read the (old) thing where the letters that matter are the first and the last one, and the others can be mixed. I read a large paragraph that way. And now this? I inmediatly read:
Oh, you mean IAMHANIBAL.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) I just used public information and personal judgement to predict the stock will double in price. This would imply extreme naivety on the part of the analyst, and, given the current lawsuits against analysts pumping stocks, probably gets a Spitzer-style lawsuit against him and his firm.
b) SCO told me X, Y, and Z, and that is the basis for my estimate. If public info, see above. Else: Woohoo, material information given to analysts yet not publically disclosed.
c) SCO hinted privately at Microsoft (or other firms) involvement. Great evidence of dirty hands in the case, and maybe a bit of case b).
In short, I'd hate to be an analyst forced to defend my "strong buy" rating on a stock while also claiming to be an expert in its market sector.
Note also that the Forbes' article also used the phrase "pump and dump." It's never a good sign when the major media starts propagating such theories!
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the people recommending Buy when the stock is at $20 are probably the same folks pumping money into SCO so they can keep the bubble from deflating. Even if it's an honest recommendation, it's based purely on high-risk speculation and not on any fundementals or facts.
Contrary to the slashbots, I think it's highly unlikely that this market manipulation is SCO, Canopy, Microsoft, Sun or anyone else. It's probably just independant brokers who know a goldrush when they see one. Just like VA Linux, etc.
Don't write off conspiracies just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://noseserver.caltech.edu/~sisk)
I definitely understand the tendency to ignore all the paranoid ravings you hear on /., because I do too. That said, there are some legit reasons to give this one consideration. First, Forbes is typically quite the conservative mag, and I doubt they'd even have printed that had it not passed the laugh test to outsiders. Second, this scheme is simliar to what canopy has done before [forbes.com] by Canopy. I'm generally skeptical, and I will bank on this being a pump-n-dump or similar scheme by SCO/Canopy. This is their MO.
The Microsoft angle is more farfetched, but not completely implausible. MS paid a *lot* of money for SCO licenses that were somewhere between unnecessary and worthless to MS. Also, lately, SCO has been making strange offers about discounts to people who make the switch to any non-linux system, and saying it in a way that all but screams "Windows."
Bottom line, I'd bet on Canopy running this scam. I'd wait for some more bookkeeping before I listened to the MS angle.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://mysite.verizon.net/spitzak)
I'm starting to wonder. It is so obvious that they are doing Microsoft's bidding... is it possible it is not true? Why are investors buying the stock? Surely not for any possible payout from the lawsuit, or any plausable income from Linux. The investors must believe that buying the stock is a way to get some of the big bucks Microsoft is paying SCO! Much better way to get some of their profits than buying Microsoft stock itself!
But some of SCO's recent announcements, where they more and more shrilly say Linux is dangerous and scary and it's problems could not possibly be solved by their lawsuit, and that they will pay you to use Windows, seem to be heavy-handed, exaggerated versions of Microsoft's assummed arguments. There purpose is obviously not to help their case, and lately don't seem really to be attacks on Linux itself (since their arguments cover virtually any software, open or closed, ever written by anybody who read another piece of software). They really seemed to be designed to prove (without saying so) that Microsoft is funding them. Maybe this funding is an entire scam.
Now this will require some inside help at Microsoft, somebody fooled them into making the original purchase of some useless licenses. If such a plot is figured out Microsoft should fire that guy's ass, and perhaps get him thrown in jail. A public action like this is the only way they are going to convince people they did not fund SCO.
So why doesn't Microsoft deny that they are funding it? Because SCO has never literally said they are getting money from Microsoft, so there is nothing to deny. If Microsoft makes a denial without a real accusasion from SCO, then everybody will then say "obviously they are funding it, since they felt they had to deny it".
Re: Well... (Score:5, Funny)
If they do, it will show the same lack of understanding the German high command exhibited at the end of WWII:
With the Russians surrounding Hitler's bunker, the Germans actually sent an officer out to negotiate peace terms. After five minutes, the Russian general basically said "we have troops and you don't. No settlement other than unconditional surrender is possible."
SCO has spent six months pissing on IBM. Short of "Darl consents to be publically sodomized by the IBM executive of your choice," SCO may not have any negotiating points left.
Re: Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Ugh, I thought we were talking about IBM winning.
Excuse me, would you mind incriminating yourself? (Score:4, Funny)
I guess you just have to ask politely enough...
Q.
Re:It's About time (Score:5, Insightful)
You want this to be properly resolved. We don't need any more of the bullshit coming from the courts where it's decided that the case is not strong enough to set a precedent, so it's dropped instead of getting resolved. Then they wait until another situation comes up that is more favorable. The future of freedom can not wait.
Re:It's About time (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday August 06 2004, @02:59PM)
Re:It's About time (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.geektownhall.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 28 2003, @09:26PM)
Re:It's About time (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://cstefan.multiply.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 24, @02:26AM)
SCO made the mistake of attacking something very core to IBM's business, its reputation.
By claiming that IBM willfully and flagrantly breached its contracts with SCO and disregarded confidentiality agreements, SCO is jeprodizing IBM's business with almost every one of their customers including banks, government, and nearly every large corporation.
Re:It's About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like Poker (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 10 2002, @03:54PM)
Re:Just like Poker (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday January 03 2003, @03:39PM)
Re:Just like Poker (Score:4, Funny)
And two of them are from an Uno deck.
Re:Just like Poker (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
What we will get from this is not any more material from SCO, but material on what they have told others that can be used against them in the Lanham act case and subsequent cases against them.
Bruce
Re:Just like Poker (Score:5, Informative)
I'm English and even *I* know what the Lanham Act is. (Or think I do, anyway.)
The Lanham Act is a law that stops businesses unreasonably making allegations that interfere with a competitor's trade. I believe that it forms the basis of part of IBM's countersuit, and also of RedHat's action against SCO.
*Googles to be sure*
OK. It seems that while it's primarily about trademarks, I'm still right. You can find the whole thing here. [bitlaw.com]
Re:Just like Poker (Score:4, Informative)
Try looking under "shark":
Re:Just like Poker (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday May 31 2004, @03:41PM)
Follow the money (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.jaymzworld.com/)
BTW, 5th post?
SCO Gives Filenames (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO Gives Filenames (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably the court would have to investigate every single file to establish the veracity of SCO's claims. Can you imagine weeding through every single
SCO would claim ownership, nobody could dispute it, and SCO could conceivably table some obscure document saying they created blah.h on some vaguely appropriate date. It doesn't have to be truthful - it can be manufactured just like all their other claims. If someone eventually comes forward and says "No, I created blah.h and here's proof", SCO would say "Fine, now let's look at blah2.h...".
Meanwhile, time would pass & SCO execs would be that much closer to their bonus payouts for keeping the stock price going upwards.
Other than the cost of doing things in this very long drawn out fashion, and I suspect SCO could find external funding for their legal costs from one or two sources in order to keep the anti-Linux FUD alive, is there anything in the US legal system preventing them from doing this?
I'm thinking all SCO's execs need to do is waste the court's time until they've got their 4th quarter of stock price rises, then bail out with big final paycheques and leave the remaining investors with whatever's left.
Re:SCO Gives Filenames (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://antiwar.com/)
As I understand it, for the moment that's up to the patience of the judge. Once plaintiff gets caught in a few lies the judges tend to get a bit short-tempered.
Beyond that, though, the assumption in your original post that the authorship of this code is somehow murky is incorrect. It took mere hours from the time the examples they screened in Las Vegas became known to the time they were identified, and a couple more days to refine the identification at most. One example that came through SGI is public domain as a result of being derived from V32, the other (the one that TSG claimed as an example of obfuscation) was a reimplimentation from the Berkley spec, both cases are well documented. You can pull any file you want, select a section of code, and pretty quickly track down where it came from, what publically (or, in the case of SysV and the like, semi-publically) available codebases it's occurred in, plot a timeline of changes... the only thing that could really make this difficult is the sheer number of different sections one might wind up looking at.
But judges, as I said, aren't known for limitless patience. Once SCO gets specific and advances some verifiable claims, and has them shot down in flames, the judge isn't going to simply let them go through that cycle ad infinitum. He's going to berate them for wasting his time, forward some transcripts to ethics committees and possibly other agencies, and turn his attention to the counterclaims. TSG knows this, and that's why they're dancing like crazy in these filings trying to deny that they ever made the claims they made, trying to avoid specifying any real claims that can be refuted.
The jig is almost up for them. The US legal system may move slow, but it gets quicker when the judge starts suspecting someone is jerking him around, and that's what's happening. Oral arguments have been scheduled, a good sign he's already caught a whiff of what TSG has cooking and he doesn't like it.
Ignore parent (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~aws4y | Last Journal: Monday October 06 2003, @11:07PM)
Some of thoes files don't contain any UNIX System V source code, only "UNIX methods" which is a vague way of saying that it may have appeared in a textbook. That is why IBM feels that simply giving filenames is insuffecent since even if there is not one pice of SysV code in thoes files SCO can still claim that some of the algorithims are similar to thoes in SysV and thus there is still a copyright violation, even though these alogrithims are taught to students in classes and SCO dosent have a patent on them.
The last point is the major weakness in SCO's case and why Novell can now just flick them away like the tiny fly that they are.
Good Thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM, Big Blue, batting in Linux's court. This will likely be the case that stands as precedence for or against the GPL, and with such a giant behind Linux, I don't think SCO will win.
If they had a chance, they would have pressed their fist into using the law to compel licensing, instead of sending "invoices" and pressuring companies to provide 'insurance' against their lawsuits.
With the right leverage (such as the kind that IBM has) this could easially compel strong legal backing for the GPL, something it could definately use.
Re:Good Thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound downright giddy at the prospect that a large company is going to prevail
Re:Didn't Microsoft and IBM just get in bed? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 06 2003, @12:27AM)
Big companies like IBM, Microsoft, et al don't act in a single-minded way like we individuals tend to. You can't run a big company with a "you're my enemy so I won't do business with you" mentality.
There are many, many examples where IBM competes or cooperates with Microsoft and others. An even more extreme example is Sony, where, one half of the business is frantically taking on file swappers and copiers, and the other half is making bucks from selling devices used to copy and swap files.
There are words for this (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday January 19 2007, @04:54PM)
Big companies like IBM, Microsoft, et al don't act in a single-minded way like we individuals tend to.
That's because when individuals act the way big companies do, we call them things like "nut cases" and "psycopaths." An individual that dumped toxic waste into a river or FUD into the media (at what would be a modest rate by corporate standards) would be locked up. An individual who was insulting someone while kissing up to them would seem (at best) socialy maladroit.
This is what makes corporate characterization of hackers as social outcasts so ironic. The most nerdly hacker is still an order of magnitude more sane & sociable than the average mega-corp.
-- MarkusQ
Announcement (Score:5, Funny)
In the recent wake of subpoena frenzy, we at subpoenaforless.com are pleased to announce a 20% discount on all our printed subpoenas, and 25% discount on rose-smelling quadrichromic printed 320g paper models. Up to 40% off all our models of subpoenas can be had if you puchase in volume. We have many satisfied [riaa.com] customers [ibm.com] and you could be one too.
We're also working hard on the upcoming opening of our new online Internet portal, oneclicksubpoena.com. Be assure that we at subpoenaforless.com are committed to high quality, trouble free legal hassles.
Hello, gentlemen (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.thundersplace.com/)
Sincerely,
amazon.com
For a good read, click (Score:5, Informative)
Warning: put drinks and domestic animals safely out of danger first.
Haha - great quote (Score:5, Funny)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654)
Oh, the irony.
Re:Haha - great quote (Score:4, Funny)
Sontag says SCO has provided 1 million pages of documents to IBM and that IBM in return has provided only 100,000 pages to SCO. "The foot-dragging is on the part of IBM," he says.
100,000 pages is dragging your feet??? I'm glad this guy wasn't my literature professor. "Next week please turn in your 1,000 page paper on 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. And it must be single spaced".
Re:Haha - great quote (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Oh, and though they had time to send the million pages to IBM, they didn't have the chance to include the code that they have been showing for months to financial analysts, columnists, and anyone who will sign an NDA. It must have slipped their minds.
Re:Haha - great quote (Score:5, Funny)
(http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com/)
"The claimant of the first party, hereafter identified as Mrs. Lee, has a prior, wilful relationship with the claimant of the second party, hereafter identified as The Book, in that the claimant of the first party establishes the status of authorship on the claimant of the second party, a status that the claimant of the second party has yet to file a motion to dismiss. Within The Book, the claimant of the third party, referenced alternativel but equally as Scout and Miss Finch is described by the claimant of the first party as
Re:Haha - great quote (Score:4, Funny)
This is about calling SCO's bluff about code (Score:5, Insightful)
But (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654)
Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
I don't see why Eric wouldn't want to testify. I'd like to. I sure don't have anything to hide with regard to this case, and I can't see how he would.
Bruce
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is about calling SCO's bluff about code (Score:5, Interesting)
It's no coincidence that IBM's move came soon after the RBC and BayStar announcements. It's a warning to other potential investors, invest in SCO and endure the gaze of IBM's army of lawyers. With Worldcom and Enron still fresh in their memory, watch them blink first. Anyone care to bet on another anonymous mass purchase of SCO licenses?
Re:This is about calling SCO's bluff about code (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I like it. Call it the "IBM Basilisk Effect" - watch your potential investors turn into stone when IBM lawyers look at them.
Re:In case we kill Forbes (Score:5, Funny)
(http://periks.net/)
I don't think he realizes that press releases don't count.
"Enthusiast"? (Score:5, Funny)
The beginning of the end (Score:3, Informative)
Sontag wants IBM to send him more paper? (Score:5, Funny)
The mind boggles! Sontag is asking IBM to deluge him in paper? He only has 100,000 pages, and he wants IBM to see his million and raise it!
Groan, somewhere, a forest cries in pain as the log chippers are fired up.
Do not start a land war in Asia, do not enter a paper war with IBM. Sheesh!
Well you see, the problem was... (Score:5, Funny)
"This page intentionally left blank."
Of course, all of SCO's 1M pages were diagrams of kittens and houses in crayon so they can hardly complain.
Re:Sontag wants IBM to send him more paper? (Score:4, Funny)
Or:
SCO: Don't get involved in a lawsuit with SCO, when intellectual property is on line! Aha-ha-ha-ha! Aha-ha-h- [CLUNK]
The Press: And to think, all that time it was SCO with the infringing code.
IBM: They both had the same code. I built up an immunity to lawsuits over it by following the GPL.
Now it gets interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that they discovered that such direct FUD backfired but are reportedly gearing up for the next round of FUD with respect to security would you be willing to state with 100% certainty that MS is not behind this action?
I wouldn't.
If it is discovered through IBM's process of subpoenas that MS is in fact behind this I wonder what will happen then. I assume that MS will be facing a court action for trying to willfully harm a competitor's business that will make the $3 billion SCO claim look tame, and I think that there will be a number of anti-trust questions raised.
Real knee-slapper (Score:3, Interesting)
Where was the freaking C&C warning?
Look, Chris baby, let's put this kindly: it was SCO who replied to a request for source code (requested for code comparison purposes) who printed it out, then scanned it, then PDFed the scanned image, then shipped the PDF. I'm sure that trick was the basis for endless merriment in Lindon, with backslapping and congratulations all around.
You'll allow me, I hope, to quietly contemplate the prospect of the Court ordering SCO to pay for manual transcription and proofreading of all 150,000 pages?
IBM readies first nuclear bomb (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would IBM need that information, unless they intended to go after somebody for securities fraud?
Bovine Rhetoric (Score:4, Funny)
(http://homepage.mac.com/jimothy)
Oh, Chris, you words always have been so moooooooving.
Since no one else pointed it out (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://davenjudy.org/)
You will also note that quietly buried in the body of the article is that Forbes was also served with a subpoena. This is undoubtedly because of Mr. Lyons' articles.
I wondered if this would happen (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://photo.net/photos/swillden | Last Journal: Wednesday July 19 2006, @01:42PM)
From SCO's supplemental responses:
I've been wondering when someone was going to try this for quite a while. "Dumping", selling a product below cost in order to force your competitors out of business, is illegal for good reasons. It seems like a motivated attorney could pretty easily make a case that any company who is putting substantial investment into software that is distributed for free is dumping, and trying to kill a competitor.
This doesn't just apply to IBM and Linux, it also applies to Sun and OpenOffice, and perhaps others as well. Now it looks like SCO is trying this argument out for real.
I had hoped the argument wouldn't get brought up for a while, until a history of such corporate open source efforts was well established. And it seemed reasonable that it might not be brought up, since the "damaged" party in both the Linux and OpenOffice cases is Microsoft, and as a convicted anti-competitive monopolist with a massive market share they're not in a very good position to complain.
It seems like Microsoft has found a way to get the idea in front of a judge after all...
Re:I wondered if this would happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that Microsoft has a long history of what you refer to as "software dumping." Internet Explorer anyone? How much have MS users paid for that piece of software, which must have cost MS millions to develop. Clearly, MS have been dumping their web browser below cost! It was, for years, a separate, free download, in an era when MS was struggling mightily to catch up to then leader, Netscape.
So, no, I don't think Microsoft really want the courts to rule that giving away software is de facto unfair competition. It would take a weapon from Microsoft's arsenal that they have used to excellent effect in the past.
Dumping is Good (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.traxel.com/)
I'm not sure whether it's illegal or not (as so many of our economics-related laws are irrational), but if it is, it is most definitely not illegal for good reason. Economists tend to get hot under the collar whenever their government engages in the economically self-destructive practice of protectionism under the spectre of dumping. Any first year economics student can explain precisely why dumping is good for the economy that is being dumped into in essentially every real world situation[1]. Any Linux enthusiast can as easily explain why the same is true of operating systems[2].
Consider the example of Netscape - Microsoft has spent nearly ten years attempting to dump it out of existence. Microsoft's price for IE remains at zero (not to mention their correlary anti-competitive attacks), and still Netscape lives on (and a host of other browsers, including ones with non-zero prices have poppoed up). And that's just looking at the browser producers - the rest of the world, the browser consumers, like 99.99% of the population and a similar percentage of businesses, are ECSTATIC about the browser wars. How different would the world today be if Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Konquerer, and IE all cost $99, and had never been free?
[1] DUMPING [economist.com]
Selling something for less than the cost of producing it. This may be used by a DOMINANT FIRM to attack rivals, a strategy known to ANTITRUST authorities as PREDATORY PRICING. Participants in international trade are often accused of dumping by domestic FIRMS charging more than rival IMPORTS. Countries can slap duties on cheap imports that they judge are being dumped in their markets. Often this amounts to thinly disguised PROTECTIONISM against more efficient foreign firms.
In practice, genuine predatory pricing is rare - certainly much rarer than anti-dumping actions - because it relies on the unlikely ability of a single producer to dominate a world market. In any case, consumers gain from lower PRICES; so do companies that can buy their supplies more cheaply abroad.
That is - unless IBM's Linux division has a maintainable monopoly on the OS market (it does not), and the ability to raise its price (it does not), and the ability to drive its competition out (OK, guilty), and there are significant barriers to reentry to the OS market (there are none), claiming dumping is specious at best.
[2] Having the ability to run a variety of operating systems without having to pay for each license makes it easier for the user to satisfy his or her wants. On the business side, a vastly greater number of businesses are OS consumers than are OS producers - thus the business world as a whole *LOVES* OS dumping (if it can be called that).
"I view this as an attempt to bully and..." (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder what his views are on sending threatening letters to thousands of companies demanding licensing fees without offering a shred of evidence supporting its claims.
I have the SCO kernel files... (Score:3, Interesting)
Subpoenas for what? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, anybody know what documents IBM asked these investors/analysts for?
IBM's options at this point (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.animats.com)
First, if SCO stalls much longer on discovery, Cravath will be in a good position to move for a dismissal. They might get it, too. Maybe even a dismissal with prejudice, so SCO can't refile, or summary judgement in IBM's favor.
Independent of this, it looks like IBM is gearing up for a securities-fraud counterclaim. Cravath has pointed out in legal filings that SCO has made statements publicly that are inconsistent with the positions they take in court. Ordinarily, that's OK. But when the stock price spikes and insiders are cashing out, that's not OK.
There's also the potential of a false-claim-of-copyright claim. That's rarely used, but here, it's clearly appropriate.
This is going to crank for a while, but unless SCO comes up with something a lot better than what they've shown so far, they're not going to win.
Executive Suicide (Score:3, Funny)
Enough (Score:3)
(http://www.indyassociates.com/)
* Does Linux infringe SCO's copyright?
* Did IBM violate their Unix License?
* If so, did IBM harm SCO by doing so?
Frankly, if SCO had a case, they would show the code, show the infringement, then show the contract, show the proof IBM violated it, followed by showing the effect IBM's actions had on their business. Fact is SCO cannot proove any of it for these reasons:
* Linux is not an infringement (less than 1% simmilar code)
* IBM did NOT break their Unix agreement and even if they did:
* SCO is responsible for their own situation. FreeBSD and Linux long ago eclipsed SCO Unix in the x86 marketplace because of price/function/value. There's little reason to buy SCO product other than fear they will sue you for not buying their own product.
IBM's move is an endgame and I'm happy to see it.
Congressman Barney Frank (D Mass.) on SCO suit (Score:5, Interesting)
====
September 26, 2003
Dear Mr. Minsky,
I share your view that the suits being brought by the SCO Group
against the users of the Linux system are an entirely inappropriate
use of the legal systems for broader corporate purposes. While I have
note been able, obviously, to examine these in detail, the suits do
not appear to me, from what I have read, to have any merit, and in
fact seem to be motivated, as I said, by an effort simply to prevent
the use of Linux for competitive reasons.
There is, unfortunately, a very limited role for Congress here. I
agree with those who would like to see us "stop SCO from punishing
innocent consumers to inflate its other legal claims." But under our
separation of powers doctrine, Congress has no role whatsoever to play
in the pursuit of particular cases. We can pass laws which prevent
certain types of suits from being brought, but it is very, very
difficult to pass those in a way that would be retroactive - that is,
that would apply to existing suits. And the problem with this suit is
not that it is of a sort of legal claim that is inappropriate to
bring, but that it is totally unjustified on the merits. In other
words, the remedy here is for these suits to be dismissed on their
merits and Congress has no role, as I have said, in doing that.
I am prepared to join in expressions of extreme disapproval of what
SCO is doing, and I will be consulting with my colleagues to see if
there is a movement to do that. I hope that will have some impact on
them. All of these lawsuits brought against individuals will of course
be dismissed but I realize that is of little consolation to people
who have had to go through the trouble and expense of defending against
them. It may be that at some point a judge will act decisively enough
in this regard to prevent this proliferation of suits, and while, as I
said, our Congressional role is very limited here, I will be
encouraging anything we can do along these lines.
Barney Frank
Re:Congressman Barney Frank (D Mass.) on SCO suit (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.circusnews.com/)
Haven't sold shares? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I wouldn't be too sure about these claims. Judging from this page [yahoo.com], there's been a few million in insider trading since June (unless I've been reading this wrong, which is entirely possible). Quite a bit for such a small company (2.4%). One executive [yahoo.com] has sold somewhere around $1,595,650 in stock since June...around 125,000 shares of his original 215,000. Sounds like a majority of his holdings to me. Now I don't know much about finance, but I think I can say this with authority: Small amounts to cover tax penalties my ass. That's a fortune, even after taxes.
Laziness! (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 25, @04:26AM)