SCO Fires back, Subpoenas Stallman, Torvalds et al 1145
SirFozzie writes "SCO has just, within the past hour, announced that they have fired back against IBM's legal broadside, with one of their own, filing subpoenas against several of the biggest names in Linux. SCO filed subpoenas with the U.S. District Court in Utah, targeting six different individuals or organizations. Those include Novell; Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel; Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation; Stewart Cohen, chief executive of the Open Source Development Labs; and John Horsley, general counsel of Transmeta."
How about an investigation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about an investigation (Score:3, Insightful)
Did Linus have anything to do with the IBM contract?
Re:How about an investigation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about an investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how this case comes out, it can't kill Linux. You think if movie studios are forced to pay $700 per Linux box they're suddenly going to switch to Windows and rewrite all their software? Do you think companies will replace their webservers with IIS? Do you think the offending code won't be removed so infringing machines are immediately fixed?
Why would anybody assume Microsoft funded this? I suppose maybe because it's something Yosemite Sam would do.
Re:How about an investigation (Score:4, Insightful)
Ms salesmen can use the words "You could be held liable if you use Linux
Company Image is big business and being sued and raided can affect your stock price.
Re:How about an investigation (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about an investigation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about an investigation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about an investigation (Score:4, Funny)
SCO can't even find any real infringements in code they're allowed to read. How on earth would they have found an infringement in code they aren't allowed to read?
They've released lots of info (Score:5, Informative)
SCO doesn't know the difference between what they once called "Ancient Unix" (which the AT&T vs. Berkeley judge said AT&T lost to the public domain) and the System V code they actually own some rights to, despite the fact that they rereleased that code themselves under the old BSD license.
SCO doesn't know the difference between original BSD code (like the packet filter code they claimed as their own) and their System V code, despite the fact that they are legally required to retain the copyright notices on the BSD parts.
SCO can't tell the difference between a legal, original reimplementation of a detailed published standard (like that BPF example, and probably like much of the POSIX, Unix9x, BSD, etc. compatibility in Linux) and an obfuscated copy of the original implementation.
More recently, SCO has "responded" to IBM's interrogatories not with specific claims of wrongdoing, but with the output of "egrep -il (smp|rcu|numa)" and a disclaimer that they're not stating that the output includes some infringement.
If they have an actual case, why are they pubishing these embarrassments instead, still keeping their case secret in court where they might piss off a judge instead of just a bunch of Linux users?
I like the saying... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I like the saying... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe slashdot could play is as a midi in the background of all the SCO articles; that would rock
Re:I like the saying... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yay (Score:4, Funny)
Swell, Stallman will be rocking in his chair, picking fleas from his beard and muttering "GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.." It's like a strawman argument against the millions of free software users..
I don't THINK so (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
Re:I don't THINK so (Score:3, Insightful)
If Stallman receives proper coaching, then he probably can do a good job on the stand. But he's not a really good public speaker, and if he's not careful, he could come off badly on the stand. We just have to hope that he
Re:I don't THINK so (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw him speak in public a couple of years ago. He's not bad. Not dazzling, charismatic or magnetic, but calm, insightfull and intelligent. He is no stranger to public speaking and will be on his home turf. I think (and hope) that he'll do fine.
Re:I don't THINK so (Score:5, Funny)
From everything I've read since the fiaSCO started, I think the Judge(s) will be very convinced when Linus loses it on the stand and starts calling the SCO people morons.
Linus: YOU MORONS!
SCO Legal Minion: Objection!
Judge: Overruled, statement of fact.
Re:I don't THINK so (Score:5, Insightful)
I should also point out that I'm well aware that your comment about 20 years passing was said in jest too, before someone accuses me of missing your :)
Anyway, back to defend my real point - while he can give very precise arguments, I think he has a tendancy to get side-tracked onto things that matter to him and not the matter at hand. He also seems to be very polarizing in his arguments - either you agree strongly, or you disagree strongly. A good speaker is capable of allowing people to listen to their arguments without forcing them to take a side, while Stallman seems to try and force his ideas on others. This makes it harder to take him seriously, as it almost makes it seem as if his ideas don't carry enough weight by themselves and instead need to be forced on people.
I honestly don't know how he'd do in a court case, but I know plenty of people who can't stand to hear him speak. He's kind of like Michael Moore in that respect - people either like listening to him or can't stand him. I personally can't stand anything Michael Moore says or does, even though I agree with him on several points. (I found Bowling for Columbine to be surprisingly good, though, because Moore was trying to start a debate and not to force his views on others.)
To try and show the parallels more clearly, think of the difference between the following:
Versus While Stallman's explanation of GNU/Linux on the FSF webpage is well thought out and closer to the first paragraph, his dealings with reporters and others in public have been much closer to the second. It's this that makes me worry about his public speaking skills - he needs to come off as someone who can make an argument that stands on its own and not solely because it has the backing of the a person with strong convictions.I hope this explains my position better - I haven't had a chance to listen to Stallman speak recently (he keeps on scheduling his speaches that I am close enough to attend at inopertune times :)), but based on the reactions to things he's said that I've seen or heard, I can only come to the conclusion that he isn't that good a public speaker.
Here's audios of RMS speeches: (Score:5, Interesting)
Also note that the issue of the name "GNU/Linux" is not about credit (more explanation here [gnu.org])
And an explanation of the fiasco regarding Stallman being asked to talk at a "Linux User Group" is available here [gnu.org].
I think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO may get more than they bargained for.
Bruce Perens (Score:3, Funny)
Courtroom Drama?? (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyer: Yes, Mr Stallman, but can you please answer the question.
Stallman: Gnu's Not Unix
ad infinitum.
Re:Courtroom Drama?? (Score:5, Funny)
so I will:
Lawyer: now, this linux operating system that you wrote...
RMS: excuse me. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. if you refer to a Linux-based operating system you should call it GNU/Linux. Also, I didn't write it, I wrote a text editor, a make system, part of a C library, and some other programs.
Lawyer: right, the new Linux, is that different than the old one?
RMS: not "new" Linux, GNU/Linux
Lawyer: Okay forget that.. Mr Stallman, when is the last time you bathed?
Re:Courtroom Drama?? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Stallman makes it into a courtroom he'll wind up with a contempt of court charge against him. I wonder if he can resist pulling his "I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about." or "I won't answer unless you ask the question with my preferred terminology." when an attorney uses "free" and "open-source" interchangeably or refers to the "Linux operating system.
In fact, if I were an SCO lawyer I'd definitely bait him until the judge sanctioned him.
Re:Courtroom Drama?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Courtroom Drama?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Courtroom Drama?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly suspect that part of the reason that Stallman has such strong views about precision of terminology is precisely because he's been working on the legal side of things for so long. The GPL is as much about hacking the legal system as Linux (err, GNU/Linux) is about hacking computer systems. To create a hack as elegant as the GPL, it's necessary to be pretty well versed in the medium you're hacking, and it seems that a fair bit has worn off on RMS.
Curious (Score:4, Interesting)
Would it? I'm curious. I've always equated perjury to lying. If someone truthfully answers a question when they *know* the answer will be interpreted incorrectly, have they committed perjury?
Uh, huh huh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh, huh huh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they're running low on crack [eweek.com]?
If Linus needs a defense fund (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If Linus needs a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
This should sum up SCO's entire campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven't got a clue what they're doing, but they're doing it.
Re:This should sum up SCO's entire campaign (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to Managment.
Re:This should sum up SCO's entire campaign (Score:5, Funny)
Further proof of Microsoft's involvement with SCO's recent irrational behavior. They're already adopted Microsoft's approach to software development!
thats odd (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:thats odd (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
-t
Re:RMS (Score:5, Funny)
This has the potential to be really funny with Stallman and Torvalds on the stand.
SCO lawyer: "And here we have exhibit [x] that clearly shows infringing code in Linux."
Stallman: "That's BSD code. It worked for a while, but someone else came up with a much better algorithm. That code hasn't been in GNU/Linux for quite some time."
SCO lawyer (clears his throat in embarrassment): "Moving on to exhibit [x], here is a flagrant example of more infringement."
Stallman: "I wrote that code myself in the early nineties. I know that for a fact because you didn't even bother removing my copyright notice."
(the courtroom comes alive in murmurs from the spectators, requiring the judge to silence the room)
The SCO lawyer finishes with Stallman and calls Torvalds:
SCO lawyer: "Exhibit [x] shows a Caldera copyright. It also shows that you personally modified it and included the code in Linux. We've got you now, you Finnish smartass!"
Torvalds: "Your own exhibit [y] shows that Caldera released the original code into the public domain on many different occasions. I originally tried retrofitting it into Linux, and it stayed for a few revisions, but it was so badly written that I was compelled to rip it out. It was replaced by a far superior version written by an Italian contributor on his 12th birthday."
(the courtroom spectators start to giggle)
SCO lawyer: "Moving on to our crown jewels, we see that the core of SCO Unix is nearly line-by-line identical to the core of Linux. Try explaining that one, hotshot."
Torvalds: "Hey! That's MY code! Rather, it's a very early and buggy version of my code. It looks very similar to Linux 0.2. Come on, guys. If you're gonna steal from Linux, at least steal the good stuff. No wonder SCO Unix sucks so bad."
Re:RMS (Score:4, Funny)
Free Software is not Open Source. (Score:5, Insightful)
He would not represent that movement at all [gnu.org]. He is the first to speak up when people make the mistake you just did [gnu.org]. If you listen to his speeches, you can read [gnu.org] or hear [gnu.org] him speak on this issue when he corrected Mike Uretsky. I think you would be well served to learn what he has to say instead of judging him by your prejudical view of his appearance.
Re:RMS (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Gates is smarter than plenty of other people, yet he is still incapable of picking out a suit that does not make him look like a department-store shoe salesman. Brilliance and social skills tend to have an inverse relationship.
Re:RMS (Score:4, Interesting)
[I've also sat next to him for extended periods at social occasions, and had no complaints, about the smell anyway.]
Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
RS is an idealist, and I honour him for his ideals, but idealism has no place in a courtroom, pragmatism is the rule of law.
Simon.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
RS is an idealist, and I honour him for his ideals, but idealism has no place in a courtroom, pragmatism is the rule of law.
Are you kidding? I understand your concerns -- RMS comes across as a total wacko -- but this is the guy who invented the GPL! I think he understands better than most people exactly why free software is on solid legal ground, so I think he'd be a fine person on the witness stand. No judge will have a hard time believing that the last thing in the world he would ever want to do would be to steal somebody else's source code and release it for free. He'd sooner rewrite it from scratch, as he's done hundreds of times before.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, agreed. His integrity is up there with the angels.
I have a horrible vision of the lawyer ripping him apart over the rights of closed-source programmers though. RMS thinks all programs should be free, not by choice but as a part of the natural order of things. Any competent lawyer should be able to do a character assassination on him, and by association the entire open source movement, with that material. I could, and I'm not a lawyer.
The other poster's comments about him being precise are valid too - he is. And he's a clever guy, but his principles and beliefs, while noble, verge on religious, which will just be ammunition in the hands of a lawyer
Simon
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the first time RMS has faced such accusations, nor will it be the first time he has responded to them. It won't be the fifth time, or the 20th time, or the 100th time. The internet gives a public persona a great deal of practice in responding to attacks. People just as intelligent as SCO's team of lawyers have been attacking RMS (at least verbally) for a long time, often with with no qualms about disingenuously misrepresenting his views.
I'd be much more worried about Linus, who has not been as willing to put himself in the middle of arguments, and is more apt to compromise. He'd be more likely to answer a question honestly, without recognizing the path down which the lawyer is trying to (mis)lead him. RMS won't lie, but he'll know not to offer facts or interpretations in a form that will provide ammunition for the lawyer.
RMS may be an extremist, but he's not a zealot. He's not blind to the opinions and perspectives of other people, even if he doesn't agree with them.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize that "zealot" is used pejoratively around here (perhaps not rightly so) but if one were to use it in a value-neutral sense, it would be a fair charaterization of Stallman.
(no disrespect intended.)
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the GPL was penned by Eben Moglen, not RMS. RMS came up with the idea, and Eben made it legally sound and defensible in court.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus however worries me, he seems to be so uninterested in the legal system that he might be considered ignorant of it. Remember when he (jokingly) said the best way to handle a patent was to "off the git" who held it?
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
He would not be expected to be a legal expert, rather he is responsible for everything that is in the official linux tree. Its not his job to know copyright law and he will tell you flatly that he is not an expert, but he knows what HE wrote, including large parts of the SMP code that SCO is claiming as their own. Its a good thing he is politically apothetic, I would rather see him spending more time coding and less debating.
He statements on patents was simple: don't research them. The reason is, if you accidently infringe on one, you are liable. If you knew about it and infringed anyway, you are liable for treble damages. ANY shop will tell you the same, programmers should NEVER research patents, thats Legal's job. Its just bad business.
Torvalds is a far worse advocate than Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
I concur. It is precisely this go-along-to-get-along attitude on issues that control his ability to continue to do what he wants to do that appeal to many Slashdot readers, unfortunately. Torvalds reaffirms apathy by tossing off subjects as unimportant. He is an impressive hacker, but I hesitate to point to his words for informed opinion on political and ethical matters.
Stallman, by contrast, makes you listen to uncomfortable things like ethical computing--a subject too few other people even approach in their public speaking. Stallman recognizes the importance of the legalized bribery system Americans call campaign finance, and he has said if he had a way to fix it he would do so and nothing could make him prouder. Stallman seems, to me, to be much more in tune with the technological forces that affect our lives as hackers and citizens.
Wonderful quote from the story... (Score:4, Funny)
oh god (Score:3, Funny)
My favorite quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm.... Sounds eerily familiar to some company trying to extort money by saying that if you use Linux, you may be violating our IP and subject to a big ass lawsuit. Unless you fork over $699 that is.
Has SCO gone completely mad? (Score:5, Funny)
>
> Is SCO completely, utterly, loony? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?!
Oh, right. That as me, quoting myself from Septempter, and then from October.
So, to bring you all up to date. It's November. The proper question is now:
"Is SCO completely, utterly, apeshit and batshit, half-a-gig-short-of-a-Debian-ISO, stark, slavering, buggo?!? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck fuck [ several dozen instances of the word "fuck" deleted for brevity ] fuck?!?!"
Re:Has SCO gone completely mad? (Score:5, Funny)
"What the fucking fuckity fuck fuck..."
Thanks!
Re:Has SCO gone completely mad? (Score:5, Funny)
It's very prestigious.
SCO = Sphincter (Score:3, Funny)
Me: A sphincter says what?
SCO: What?
Me: Exactly.
(paraphrasing from Wayne's World [moviewavs.com])
Just in Time for Xmas (Score:4, Funny)
I'm leaving out extra milk and cookies this year.
Another go at the pump machine? (Score:5, Interesting)
Luckily the Pump seems to be a bit dry today, even after they opened their mouth; is it a sign that investors are catching on on their scam? I surely hope so.
Also, being served a subponea hopefully will be the last straw for Linus before he files a copyright infringement suit against SCO.
Raising the bar (Score:5, Funny)
"Should we invite Jeff to speak at our little conference?" "Well, he didn't get a subpoena from SCO, so he's probably not that important..."
jeff
Re:Raising the bar (Score:5, Funny)
A classic from UserFriendly/The Far Side (Score:3, Funny)
Just like the Korean war talks (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing surprising. It's SCO's standard delay-as-long-as-we-can tactic. SCO knows that as soon as they actually have to offer up their proof that copied code is in Linux, it won't stand up to analysis, their case will be rejected, and their stock will drop like a stone. It'll be game over for SCO as a company. Their current business model depends on not offering any proof of their claims.
So why not subpoena everyone, to make things as slow and difficult as possible? I'm surprised Elvis and Bigfoot aren't on the list.
Kinda reminds me of the negotiations at the end of the Korean war. Every last detail of how the talks were to proceed were argued to death before the talks could begin. There were even provisions as to which direction the delegates sat and how high their chairs were in relation to each other before they'd talk. And the reason was, was that the delegates simply didn't want to be there. Same for SCO.
Weaselmancer
SCO Civil War Escalates; no clear leader (Score:5, Funny)
Stowell, spokesman for the company, was unable to explain the latest round of subpoenas in the company's lawsuit against IBM for copyright infringment. When asked what the purpose was, he replied that he had no idea, but"I know that some of them have been served."
For veteran SCO watchers, this is a sign that the previously-untouchable spokesman may be on the outs.
"Why wouldn't the spokesman know what was going on?" asked one CIA analyst. "It's his job. But it's little clues like this that give us a suprisingly good idea of what's going on in Utah."
A source within SCO, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed this view of events.
"Darl [McBride, CEO of SCO] just went crazy the other day when [Stowell] asked what the next step was," he said. "He started asking all sorts of questions about whose side [Stowell] was on, was he wearing a wire, who else felt like this, this sort of thing. He even pulled out his laptop and started Googling for Stowell's name on LKML [a mailing list for Linux kernel developers]. Now we're not allowed to talk to Blake at all."
"It's a shame, because Blake was one of the moderates," the source continued. "A while back Darl started talking about putting Richard Stallman's head on a pike outside the compound. Said it was the least he deserved. Blake talked him down from that before anything could happen. Now there's very few left to do that."
However, McBride's hold over the company is anything but absolute, and the future of his leadership is still in question. "There's still a significant group within SCO that are trying to find the combination for the safe where he keeps his shares," said the CIA analyst. "That's why he hasn't left the compound in over six weeks."
Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, was unavailable for comment. Sources close to the computer guru said he had gone underground. "He saw some guy hanging around the office that he thought was a bounty hunter. That was enough for Richard."
Please Please Please stop it... (Score:3, Funny)
This drama is giving all those soaps a serious run for their money.
SCO's legal stratagem (Score:3, Funny)
What about Cox? (Score:5, Interesting)
That part about Caldera (now SCO) supporting his writing the very code they are suing over might cause problems for them, though...
Re:What about Cox? (Score:5, Informative)
SCOundrels (Score:5, Insightful)
So this is it.
SCO takes off the wrapper and makes it absolutely clear that it intends make an attempt to destroy Open Source.
There can be no other reason for delivering subpoenas on Stallman and Cohen, to a lesser degree Torvolds.
They are going to go after the license, they almost _have_ to try and discredit GPL after distributing the code themselves.
They can't shine a light of accusation at IBM until they have done so.
I think it's time that the FSF put a call in to the ACLU.
Even with the help of IBM this portends to be big, dirty and long.
The stakes go much deeper than software they go to the heart of freedom and a free society.
RMS on the stand. . . Oh no!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, I just remember thinking at the shows I saw him at that, well, he's very good at evangelizing geeks about Free Software. But put him on the stand in a courtroom, or in some other very public setting, and he might do a good job of alienating the general public.
I truely hope that I'm wrong. Really, I do. Let's just say I think RMS might need to work on his people skills, and personal appearance, a little bit before getting on the witness stand.
Hand up, everyone who saw this coming (Score:5, Interesting)
It's surprising that they didn't include Bruce Perens and/or ESR in their list. Those two have been pretty involved in pointing out SCO's FUD. SCO even implied that ESR was being paid by IBM to attack them!
I'm not sure what the point of sending a supoena to RMS is though. Perhap the braintrust at SCO is unaware that free software != open source software? I'm sure he would be happy to send them a copy of the free software manifesto. It might not hurt if he sent them a copy of the BSD ruling as well.
If SCO ever had a plan beyond:
they are doing a very good job of hiding it. It just looks like one ad-hoc decision after another. Since they initiated the proceedings against IBM, the chewbacca defense isn't an option, and it is difficult to see any coherent strategy at work here.
Of course, slashdotters are not the intended audience. SCO is playing to the analysts who will repeat what they have been told about SCO's claims being legitimate in order to keep those share prices up there. It is obvious that SCO is not interested in speaking to people who know something about software and technology.
My fantasy: Geeks on the stand (Score:5, Funny)
Attorney: Isn't it true that you stole code from SCO?
Geek: Yes.
Attorney: What? So, you did steal code from SCO?
Geek: No.
Attorney: I'm confused, now, did you or did you not steal code from SCO?
Geek: Yes.
Attorney: Your Honor, I would like to treat this witness as hostile.
The Court: The witness is directed to answer only "yes" or "no".
Attorney: AAAARRRRGH!
Geek: Hmmm...Is is Sept 19 already?
Re:My fantasy: Geeks on the stand (Score:4, Funny)
Bah. We're talking of Richard Stallman here!
> (not (didp you (stealp you sco-code)))
t
> (didp you (stealp you sco-code))
nil
> (or (not (didp you (stealp you sco-code))) (didp you (stealp you sco-code)))
t
SCOs' Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider SCO statements that claim "the GPL is unconstitutional" or the philosophy motivating linux is to "destroy commercial software".
I'll bet the questions directed toward them will include references to RS social contentions posted on his web site and perhaps if Linus Torvalds is - "a devoted communist, like your father".
the mind is its own beautiful prisoner
Fire back?! (Score:5, Interesting)
In alleged response to IBM's request, SCO filed a bunch of its own subpoenas. Exactly how is that "firing back"?! The only way SCO could "fire back" is by responding to IBM's request, i.e., PROVE ITS CASE!!!
SCO's subpoenas are nothing but a delay tactic. It's an attempt to avoid firing back as long as possible. SCO is not ready to let the world know it has absolutely no proof.
For any SCO supporters out there, ask yourself this: If SCO had evidence, why is it STILL hiding it?! An author cannot sue another author for plagiarism, but refuse to tell exactly what was plagiarized!
New Business Model (Score:4, Funny)
Business Student: But if a company has nothing to offer, how can they make money?
Business Professor: *shakes head* There is a new approach we are going to call the 'Legal Model.' In this model you don't need a product or service, but good lawyers. You see, you get a good law firm and you target innocent people, twelve year olds are good, or even large businesses. It does not matter the reason, in fact, the stupider the reason, the more you look to gain from it. Inveritably someone will invest in your cause, your stock will go up and whether you are bought out or win, you stand to make money. Helps to use bully tactics to force settlements out of people as well.
Business Student: But how do you plan to pay for the lawyers?
Business Professor: Oh just give them a large percentage if you are bought out or win the law suits. Lawyers are suckers for those types of deals. It's actually incentive for them.
Is this the Business Model of the Future?
A little precognition... (Score:5, Funny)
"Yes, I did."
"Do you stand by that description."
"No, I do not. It would be an insult to crack-smokers everywhere."
Kjella
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Subpoena != Court Appearance (Score:5, Informative)
I mention this because a number of posts speculate on "the GPL finally going to trial" or some such as a consequence of this. That may very well happen, but not as an immediate result of this. So those of you awaiting the "GPL Final Combat" should probably sheathe the swords for a little while longer...
All your Malloc routine.. (Score:4, Funny)
Darl..
Congressman Barney Frank's reply to earlier suits (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
not 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:just buy SCO out! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:just buy SCO out! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting my USD 100
Re:just buy SCO out! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of like if your neighbors found out there's a toxic waste dump in their back yard, so they sue you over the fence you put up, hoping your cheapest way out of the suit is to buy their house, toxic waste dump and all. There's no merit to the suit, but the point isn't to get the fence moved, it's to get you to buy them out and take the liability off their hands.
Re:just buy SCO out! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much for the same reason businesses shouldn't pay extortion money. If SCO gets ground to dust by this it'll deter others from doing the same. If they get a big buy-out (which appears to be their goal) then what is to stop the next guy with some IP (or who buys some IP) from following SCO's example?
It seems pretty telling that SCO's Lawyers are promised 20% of the buy-out if one happens, doesn't it?
Re:WHAT!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WHAT!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, you do realize that a subpoena does not mean those people are being attacked? It merely means that SCO ostensibly thinks they possess information which is relevant to the case, and they are asking that it be turned over. Although the article said nothing at all about exactly what information SCO was after (going by their past performance, I'm guessing it will be overly broad and intended to show a bias in SCO's favour - something like "Give us all information you have that might validate our claims", then when the people can't come up with this they will accuse the linux community of holding back important information), it seems reasonable to me to subpoena the people that ostensibly know the most about the software in question. However, while issuing subpoenas for these people seems reasonable to me, I somehow doubt that the subpoenas themselves will be reasonable.
Re:Fitting (Score:3, Insightful)
It fscking doesn't make sense what they are doing, if you ignore that make-a-buzz->make-the-stock angle.
Re:Fitting (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the history so far this doesn't look like planned. The people involved (apart from Linus) have little to no relation to the suit. Like elsewhere has been pointed out countless times already: SCO pulls a seemingly egregious stunt every time they are being slapped. Stock manipulation is as good an excuse as any.
When the latest IBM move to subpoena investors for information took place, I actually though that someone at IBM has struck with scary precision. They haven't taken that many separate steps. Instead they've hit seldom and hard. I think that whoever is directing their efforts against SCO works like a war strategist. Compare that to SCO's constant and almost random slinging of threats.
It's almost like a street-fight with two very unequal opponents. Other may be fast but lacking focus manages only to swing wildly at air. A more seasoned fighter just makes sure to avoid the hits and waits for an opening, and then promptly punches in their opponent's adam's apple. It's not pretty, it's not fair, but it is effective.
I only wish SCO choked soon enough.
Re:sad but fun (Score:5, Funny)
Well, we do get our share of laughs making fun of European royal familes, so it probably balances out.
Re:sad but fun (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, but we make fun of our royal family (in the UK, at least), so we're still ahead :-)
Re:sad but fun (Score:5, Informative)
Don't worry, European courts have produced plenty of whoppers of their own -- German lawyers going on trademark jihads concerning trademarks they don't even own (Mobilix); British courts making it illegal to tell anyone that some servant saw Prince Charles and another man doing the nasty (whoops, now Slashdot will have to be banned in the UK!); French courts ruling that Google can't let a competitor use the AdWords feature to attach an ad to a search that mentions a competitor's name -- I could go on and on.
Re:sad but fun (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sad but fun (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Criple Fight!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you started your reply by crying out: 'give me a break', but I would really wish to point out that you are the exact kind of poster that I want to give me a break
While attentions are diverted from Microsoft they are rebuilding. Once the dust of the present war ends Microsoft will step in, fully rested, and pick up where it left off however they will be fighting a tired and battle weary enemy.
Does somebody again want to clarify what this is all about in the first place. I bought a red-hat boxed linux sometime ago, and it did not come with sharp knives, camoflauge paint or gunpowder to get me ready for the up and coming technology war of the century, in fact, knowing then what I know now, I wouldn't have bought the box, since I can get that stuff free on the internet. What is the fight all about???? Who's doing battle with who??? You're stepping onto the battlefield to put your life on the line for what? So that people you've never met get forced to use your operating system of choice? Can't I just use my computer happily and quietly, the way I want...why do I have to fight in the trenches?
I've been reading slashdot for a while, and I don't post often, but you my friend, have finally caused me to put in my two cents. I use a computer running linux for one reason, and one reason only: it suits my needs. I am not planning on battling a giant software company by using it. Linux will _never_ die (I'd be willing to argue that point, but I won't now). People will continue to use windows as well, and most of the people I know that do, I don't blame them, as they have their own reasons. It makes no difference to anybody except yourself what you want to use, so if you have the savvy to run something like linux, then by all means, run your own box. What this isn't about is fighting a battle against a large software company (note that I don't call them a monopolist, as they aren't). I'll let redhat do that, as that's what they are in the business for. If I start my own company, no matter what I do, I'd buy software that works best for what we need. Do I stake my company on the automatic install of OSS based on my moral beliefs that OSS is better? How about I only hire employees that have the same moral opinion as I do, regardless of their skill level? Sounds like something's not right with this picture.
I sincerely hope that people like yourself will eventually realize that this isn't about war, it's about freedom...and you have to remember that if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary.
Re:Criple Fight!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real catch is the fact that if they embrace and extend, they have to open the source, which would be instantly forked without their contributions. They can't extinguish something they have to have in the open. If they DID embrace a program, lets say Mozilla, and then added some crapola that was MS only specific, called it Billzilla, then two years later dropped it. They have to show us the code, and the Bill part of the zilla would be stripped out instantly, and any good stuff would be left in. They can't kill it.
GPL is like the Borg in one way, you can't kill it. You can't revoke the license, you can't make any software under the GPL go away. It lives forever, and not even the copyright holder can kill it, because I can always take the last release and fork it, change the name (leave the copyrights) and release it. It's like Freddy Krugar, with #comments.
IANAL, but here's some answers (Score:4, Informative)
1: do as ze Germans did. File an injunction and get it enforced [computerworld.com]
The fine comes nearly three months after a regional court in Munich issued the court order in response to a suit brought by the nonprofit Linux conference organization, LinuxTag e.V., and IT consulting firm Tarent GmbH. The two groups sought the injunction to prevent SCO from making claims about intellectual property violations in Linux without presenting any evidence...
2: do as IBM has done and try to get the facts out. And since we know SCO won't give up the goods, get it from anyone else with their hand in the SCO piggy bank. [forbes.com] "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"