McBride Speaks, In Person And In Print 782
Phil Windley writes "Darl McBride gave the keynote at CDXPO this evening and held a press conference afterwards. I've posted my summary of his talk and the press conference on my weblog. In his talk, Darl seemed to be saying "Don't hate me. I'm only doing what I had to do."" On the other hand, in this interesting interview with CRN, McBride comes one whisker from likening Linux users to drug users, renews threats to sue end users, and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
dmca? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's he mean by that?
Re:dmca? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dmca? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my opinion that Darl et al will argue that: because the GPL requires a licensee of GPL code to give up the rights they have under copyright law to their additions/derivatives (instead of giving up money) then it is not an allowable license.
It's total bollocks when you think about it - after all, any copyright owner gives up rights they have under copyright law when they accept money from a publisher! However, that's my tuppence (like 2 cents, but English).
So who REALLY is behind all this SCO nonsense? (Score:3, Funny)
Tinfoil time (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. But apart from paranoia, SCO also seem to suffer from Multiple Personalities Disorder (once they were a Linux vendor, now they hate the GPL), therefore they'll be fine because they outnumbers their ennemies 2 to 1.
Always Wondered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Always Wondered (Score:5, Interesting)
You also pointed out that he makes a great deal of money. I'm sure that helps a lot.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:5, Informative)
Not the same at *all*. A lawyer who defends a mass murderer is almost always appointed by the court. This lawyer is there to ensure that the legal rights of the defendant are secured. It's a basic and fundamental part of how our legal system works.
With this in mind, it's easy to be vigorous in defending the legal rights of somebody you detest. It's not self-interest, it's moral duty.
On the other hand, McBride is in a different ballpark altogether. Here's somebody who's clearly seeking personal gain at other's expense.
We're talking about something worse than a scum-sucking lawyer... the PR man!
Clueless! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the cost of "playing the game" of business...sitting around board tables, jet setting to last-minute meetings--it's a drug of "power".
Guys like him start out "at the bottom" in the old boys network. They typically go from newbie to boss in a short time...he's probably never actually researched ANYTHING to do with copyright or patent on his OWN...delegating doesn't count. Guys like him deal in what they WANT...not what's REAL. I find executives as a class get a surprising amount of info from word-of-mouth, Forbes [& such], and CNN...far more often than say..googling for a copy of the LAW, or court cases/common practice to support their claims.
I find they're like the kids in school that don't know the game really well, but can argue the rules 'till everyone is bored and gives up.
Re:Clueless! (Score:3, Insightful)
Here it comes: -1, Flamebait
Re:Always Wondered (Score:5, Insightful)
Several items point to the hypocrisy behind the whole issue:
1. His allusion that the 'big boys' opposing SCO were purely motivated by Capitalism - while his poor little company was merely pursuing their righteous imperative.
2. Then, he states that he has no responsiblity to 'sing kumbaya around the campfire' with the linux users - not customers he is quick to state ["There are only two industries who use the term 'users,' computers and drugs"] - only a responsibility to increase shareowner value (sounds like capitalism to me, particularly as he went on to brag about the SCO stock going from $1 to $14).
Re:Always Wondered (Score:4, Insightful)
Godwin's Law (Score:5, Funny)
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_L
Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:5, Interesting)
McBride: The interesting scenario is, do you go after an HP customer or an IBM customer? That's what David is the master of. That's his final decision
So, if I am understanding this, the lawer is in charge.
Anybody else shocked?
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because he's lying.
One of the reasons to hire a lawyer is to give yourself plausible deniability. If I want to cause you pain, you hire a lawyer, sue you, and then claim "Its not me, its the lawyer". The lawyer doesn't care; its his job, and you get to pretend like you're an innocent bystander.
Really, think it through. Darl has the strategy, the lawyer is providing tactics, but ultimately, Darl is approving of those tactics, regardless of what he says in public.
I'm more shocked that people are surprised that Darl is lying. Darl is lying every time he makes a public utterance. Darl doesn't care about Unix, Linux, bits, bytes, he's only trying to raise money, and if you look at it through that immoral mindset, then you say anything as long as it maximizes profits.
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're baffled, it's probably because you see SCO as a company who profits from selling things as apposed to suing people. Their latest shareholder statement seems to really emphasise their Intellectual Property as one of their three main sources of income, but they don't have much exciting to say about the other two. In that light, suing their "customers" is just fine. And so is letting their lawyer set their "business" strategy.
Keep in mind that if McBride does not do what is arguably best for the bottom line of the company, his shareholders can sue him. If you have a bunch of SCO stock and about a billion dollars lying around you can probably sue him for taking a short-sighted approach to keeping his company profitable. Not too many people are in that position though.
The thing that kills me is that SCO's stock is still around $14 (up from $1 in March but falling the past week) - which means that most investors believe that SCO will be worth more in the future. Are they banking on a buyout or a win in court? Yes, I'm shocked, but over the public's reaction. Not McBride's statements.
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but there is "bottom line" and there is "BOTTOM LINE". McBride has sacrificed long term corporate viability for the possibility of a lottery-type payoff (at pretty much the same odds).
I don't think he was counting on IBM and the open-souce folks being utterly unwilling to settle, and able to account for every line of code as well as being able to show its history - in some cases right back to the founders of Unix and before. In other words - he doesn't understand open-source in the slightest.
And since SCO has so thoroughly blotted it's copybook with the Linux/Unix community, when SCO loses this fight THEY. ARE. HISTORY. Their revenue stream will vanish like a soap bubble and their stock go into negative values.
That is the bottom line - and it, too, is actionable by shareholders.
I suspect that Boies and Co. think so too. Did you notice - they aren't working on contingency. They want money up front, now. If they truly believed in their cause I would think that they would prefer to wait for the big payoff.
Medication? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Medication? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Medication? (Score:5, Funny)
Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Funny)
2. Claim you're doing what you got to do (voices?)
3. P
3. .
3.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Insightful)
You meant to say "as aggressively as is still legal." Being a CEO does not give you the right to engage in extortion or to make untrue statements.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Informative)
With knowledge of possible IP infringement by IBM and others, it would have been illegal for these gentlemen not to follow up on it as agressively as possible.
Unfortunately for Darl, libel, tortious interference with trade and willfully misleading potential investors are *also* illegal, among other recent SCO actions. A CEO has a legal responsibility to lead his company aggressively, but that doesn't give him license to break the law.
As far as copyright infringement goes, SCO has now been spouting about this for a year and thus far SCO has revealed *one* legitimate infringement -- and it was an ancient and trivial bit of code that was removed from Linux without even replacing it, because better code already existed in the kernel.
With respect to the other IP issues, patents and trade secrets, well, the former is really funny because SCO doesn't appear to possess any applicable patents and the latter has also not been revealed, even though SCO has a legal obligation to do so. IBM has now filed *two* separate Motions to Compel, trying to get SCO to say just exactly what IBM did wrong. Early next month, those motions will almost certainly generate a court order. We'll see if SCO can finally invent something plausible when their other option is to be held in contempt of court or to admit that their case is groundless.
In case any true SCO apologists want to point to the million pages of code and the list of Linux files as evidence that SCO *is* complying with discovery, consider:
include/asm-m68k/spinlock.h
What, does SCO own C pre-processor macros?
There was another funny one (which I can't find right now), which happened to mention IBM in a comment regarding a hack used to work around some misfeature of ancient IBM hardware. The file was a driver for said hardware, and wasn't written by IBM.
Pah! It's clear that SCO just grepped the Linux source base (which the community has deduced was version 2.5.59, BTW) for SMP, NUMA, IBM and JFS, excluding matches related to architectures pushed by companies who have been cooperative with SCO (Sun and HP).
You really think a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to engage in crap like that?
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Insightful)
This just isn't true and seems to have grown into another one of those self-replicating Slashdot myths. A CEO only has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. Whether that is aggresive or passively and frugaly is not a matter of law. Shareholders are welcome to vote out execs who's methods they don't agree with but they only have recourse to the law if the exec(s) act _against_ the interests of the company, whether to line their own pockets or those of another company. In other words they would generally have to act fraudulently to be legally culpible. Losing or making money, and the speed or agressiveness with which they do it is a matter purely between shareholders and execs.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, but he doesn't have to destroy Linux in the process. If SCO has been wronged then SCO will be compensated. But Darl is doing his level best to ruin everything good about Linux in his attempt to make money.
Oh yeah, he says he doesn't want to "destroy" Linux. He's lying. In the CRN interview he states without ambiguity that he wants SCO to be paid for every installation of Linux. He publicly defames the GPL. He attacks the development process. He attacks the developers! He makes critical but not constructive statements about Free Software.
But the worst act of all. The most despicable and heinous act. Darl refuses to help the Linux developers remove the alleged copied code. Darl seems content to allow the alleged infringements to continue in perpetuity so as to line his own pockets. Linux will be destroyed by that act alone. Darl doesn't give a fuck about that. It's his money, right? Linux is his bitch and he can charge whatever he damn well likes. Bad luck to all the millions of developers who poured their heart and soul into creating a community owned project. It's his! He gets to charge $699 for it. Nobody else. Just him!
These are immoral acts. He has every right to defend SCO's property. He has every right to get compensation for use of SCO's property. He has every right to sue IBM so a court can decide the truth of that matter. But he's a fucking prick in the way he's going about it.
I hope he goes to prison.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:4, Funny)
Though he might use a rolled up print out of the 2.6 kernel
Here's the Meat of the Story... (Score:5, Informative)
McBride: Our goal is not to blow up Linux. People ask why we don't go after the distributors...'If you have such a strong case, why not shut down Red Hat?' Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
What if it's not sold? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Darl, faced with a product that is very often free to hobbyists or companies willing to support themselves internally is going to gain revenue from this how? If I never touch anything to do with Caldera Systems, the only way that they're going to even know that I have my copies of Linux would be to stage a BSA-style raid on my home or business, count the machines, audit the software, and the like.
This does scare me. Not in the sense that I think that Darl and his other brother Darl will win, but that if they were to somehow squeak by with a court victory, establish precedent, and continue winning court victories that somehow gave them rights to that which they shouldn't otherwise, what's to stop them from being even more asinine?
I have no love for the company whose operating system has the most market share, but at various times, when working for computer companies that sold product, if something were amiss, an actually friendly representative would come in and identify himself as a rep, tell us how the product distribution for the product (usually the OS) worked (like, minimum pricing put into the wholesale distribution), cite our ad if the price were lower than the initial wholesale price, and if something were amiss, he'd inspect the product. A couple of times we had forged copies, which was noticeable on the booklets on further inspection, and he traded us all of the faulty software for good copies, all that he wanted to know was where we got them. No fuss, no muss, no lawyers talking, even for software that would be fairly easy to prove as illegitimate if it came down to it.
Compare this to Caldera in their approach. They're huffing and puffing about $600+ licencing fees for the OS. Everone who bends and pays encourages them to seek out everyone else that has "product", regardless of origin. They'll be querying webservers, looking at NAT and Masquerade data that they find, and making a big pain out of themselves. They'll call the FBI to attempt to root out the "piracy" of what they "own" in BSA-style raids. They'll make a mockery of the criminal justice system the same as they have the civil system.
Yes, I'm being extremely paranoid, but a little paranoia now is better than a terrible situation later, especially if ways to combat this can be found.
Re:What if it's not sold? (Score:5, Informative)
IBM has always been very dangeorous to mess with and while SCO may gain some stock value in the short term anyone who bets on them surviving in the long term is going to lose.
Re:What if it's not sold? (Score:4, Interesting)
The information available about the IBM contract is pretty clear, unless you accept SCO's redefinition of the word 'derived'. I really don't think they'll get away with this.
The reason regular people don't need to be worried, however, is that even if IBM were to somehow lose, that doesn't effect Linux. It's a contract dispute between IBM and SCO. If there were really copyright issues involved SCO would have produced the evidence by now.
Re:Here's the Meat of the Story... (Score:5, Informative)
That you aren't allowed to create derivative works of a GPL'd work without them also being subject to the GPL is not a violation of copyright either, as derivative works typically contain some or all of the original copyrighted code, and must therefore be subject to whatever copyright restrictions were placed on it.
I find it peculiar that the GPL is practically the exact _opposite_ of what McBride seems to think it is.
"Users" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Users" (Score:3, Funny)
What end-products? (Score:5, Funny)
And what are the end-products your company makes?
Re:What end-products? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't wait to see their next quarterly 10Q statement, and see how the death spiral continues in their main business while the rest of the enterprise hinges on settlements and/or courthouse victories. Either way, I suspect in 5 years SCO will be but a distant memory.
Re:What end-products? (Score:3, Funny)
The same end-products I plan to produce this afternoon. (Going to Taco Bell for lunch)
In case of slashdotting: (Score:5, Informative)
"Carl McBride: Linux Won't Remain Free
The evening keynote at CDXPO is by Darl McBride. On the way in they handed out a pamphlet from WIPO entitled "Intellectual Property: A Power Tool for Economic Growth." I'm not sure who decided to hand it out, but I think its a little silly.
Darl starts out with a history of SCO. He says "SCO = UNIX." (Note: in the interest of my fingers, I'm going to stop typing "he says" and just type the essence of his speech. If I add commentary of my own, I'll note that.) A year ago, the answer to the question "who owns UNIX?" would have gotten a variety of responses. While there are many branches of UNIX, they all tie into the same tree trunk. AIX, HPUX, and others are licensed products of SCO. There are more than 6000 licensees with access to UNIX source code. Now he world knows that SCO owns those licenses.
When Darl joined SCO, its market cap had gone from a billion dollars to 6 million and had about 6 months of operating funds in the bank. When he looked at the assets, he saw $60 million in revenue, a channel of resellers, and intellectual property. He didn't think the company was getting the most from its IP assets and saw IP infringements from "the upstart Linux."
He was told when he examined this space that going after Linux infringements would bring down the wrath of the Linux community on the company. He didn't see the Linux community as one of his assets. His constituents are his shareholders and customers.
SCO set up a licensing program to put UNIX libraries on Linux. IBM threatened that they would not support SCO on their products if they didn't retract their licensing program. 20% of SCO's operating systems ship on IBM hardware. IBM thought the program would imply licensing issues with Linux. IBM was talking about taking major parts of AIX and moving it into Linux. Since IBM makes a large portion of its revenue from its IP, SCO thought this was unfair.
SCO got to the point where they had one option left: litigation. That set in place a chain of events that led to the last six months. What is not in dispute:
SCO owns all UNIX System V source code
SCO owns agreements to all UNIX vendors
SCO owns all UNIX System V copyrights
SCO owns all claims for violation of UNIX licenses.
SCO controls UNIX System V derivative works.
SCO doesn't own the derivative, but they have rights to confidentiality that are the same as for the original work.
The Linux infringements include literal copying, obfuscated copying, derivative works, and non-literal transfers.
Darl takes on what he calls urban myths surrounding SCO.
I am not a Penguin Slayer or a Suit-Happy Cowboy.
SCO does not want to destroy open source or Linux. With the appropriate checks and balances, open source has merit.
End users are not safe in taking a wait and see position. SCO is contacting customers and asking them to take a license of litigate position.
Linux infringements cannot be fixed by simply removing or changing it.
The GPL is at risk, but IBM put it on the table, not SCO as part of the litigation.
Some other points:
There's no free lunch or free Linux. The value proposition of Linux is UNIX for free. Free models such as free music, free Internet, free bandwidth, and free love haven't worked.
Giving away a UNIX-like OS for free isn't a problem. What is a problem is giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it.
Free software removes the incentive for innovation. There will lost jobs and lack of competition. SCO is in a tug-of-war between those who want software to be free and those who support proprietary software. SCO is a bellwether for this giant tug-of-war.
This country was built on the notion of property ownership and being about to protect one's property. What's left in this company are concepts and ideas. If you take away the ability to protect that, we're reduced out ability to compete as a country (cue the break out the flag, someone).
Predi
No no no no: GPL reworked to be more pro-business (Score:5, Insightful)
What Darl wants, and I will fight to the end of my days to prevent, is a return to the hugely inefficient days when every Tom, Dick and Harry company could build their own unique, incompatible-with-the-universe, expensive custom OSes. Only in the rarest of cases were those systems worth anywhere near their costs. Digital, Data General, IBM, AT&T, Sun, Apollo, (reaching back in history here) Interdata, Xerox, Burroughs, Sperry, RCA, all spent *huge* numbers of their customers' dollars funding their slick research OSes. It was interesting for some, but terrifically expensive for the majority of businesses. On the other hand, the openness implicit in GPLed (and to a lesser extent BSD licensed) code provides an excellent mechanism for encouraging the boad adoption of open standards. These standards lead to portability, interoperability, and the dissemination of the knowledge needed for full participation in information-intensive societies.
<repeating a prior comment>I dropped a fully-paid UNIXware license, converting to Linux in 1996 due to UINXware's inadequate support of then-current hardware. It has only fallen further behind since then. If you want to compete with the big boys, then be prepared to perform up to their standards.</repeat>
Re:In case of slashdotting: (Score:3, Informative)
First, there is no concept under US law called "Intellectual Property". There is patent law and copyright law and that is it. As far as trade secrets are concerned, that is a matter between contracting partners. McBride has no claim against partners with whom his company or their predecessors weren't contracted.
The
McBride knows Tricky-questions-dodging-fu (Score:5, Insightful)
McBride: From a legal standpoint, this is not an issue, but its a PR issue.
Nice dodge, we'll see if it works as well in court.
Any way to scare SCO off? (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is obviously going to take a long time to work, and his army of lawyers working on huge sums of borrowed money will just keep leeching from the Linux camp. This might be something you and I can brush off, but the PHBs out there are REALLY not going to take on OSS software so long as shit like this keeps happening.
Re:Any way to scare SCO off? (Score:4, Funny)
Whatchayall need is to get SCO to claim copyright infringement against the Church of Scientology. Somebody tell Darl that the Church's highest level doctrines contain SCO intellectual property. The $cienos will lay his company to waste.
It Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is based on copyright law. It's solid. A lot of very smart people spent a lot of time working on it, and it has been around in the wild for a long time as well. Nothing SCO can do will overturn that.
And even - if we play devil's advocate for a second - if SCO managed to somehow overturn the GPL, then the copyrights revert to the original authors and they STILL cannot steal it. And in the meantime, Stallman and the FSF will go to work on GPL Next Generation that patches whatever hole managed to get punched in it.
The Code Is Out There. It cannot be made to go away, and more importantly, the culture of Free Software/Open Source is established and entrenched. If necessary, Linux could be re-written from scratch and the project would carry on.
It's not going to come to that... but even in the worst possible case for us, SCO cannot stop us. At best, it can only slow things down.
What you are seeing and hearing are the first of the death throes of the former Big Players. Microsoft's death will likely be even more messy... but it doesn't matter in the end. The horse carriage makers and sailing shipbuilders died hard too.
We really are invincible - that's what has these people so scared. The only question is "when?" and... well, who cares? If you're reaping the benefits of Linux, then YOU have already won. So it takes a little while longer to make it to everone. *shrug* Big deal. When victory is inevitable, don't complain that it doesn't arrive fast enough.
Personally, I'm thanking my lucky stars that the first big opponent in the battle between Big Business Proprietary Software and Free Software - the case that is likely to set all kinds of precidents - is against an opponent so painfully and obviously in the wrong. They're centered around a *stock scam* fer crissakes, and they're abusing the judges. Read Groklaw for a taste of just how poorly this battle is being fought by the "other side" and how well by "our side".
We could have wound up fighting somebody much, much smarter with a better case, purer, and uncontaminated with by market foolishness. Instead, we got SCO. That's cause for celebration in my book.
DG
Linux and drugs (Score:5, Funny)
I used to work for SCO, in a past life (Score:5, Interesting)
different company, dude! (Score:3, Informative)
Unless it was a pretty short "looong time", you didn't work for the same company. The company you worked for, The Santa Cruz Operation, is now called "Tarantella", and they're out of the OS business. The company that's suing IBM is the company formerly named "Caldera", now The SCO Group (no "Santa Cruz" in the name any more). They purchased some assets (name and SYSV source licenses) from the old SCO, but they're a completely separate company.
all the big guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it is not important that all the big guys are out to get SCO. In any business sector all the big guys are always out to get all the other competitors. The problem is that SCO has said that there can be only one *nix distributor, and the authority of all other *nixes must come from it. While this benefits certain firms, and those firms have provided as much help as they can, it does not benefit most of the sector, and actually threatens their survival. Which is just common sense. It is one thing to compete against the big guys. It is another thing to publicly call for their death. Such a thing tends to turn the fight into a death match. And no one feels sorry for the guy who starts it.
Faaaaark (Score:5, Funny)
I can see that happening in a hurry. Hell I bet nobody would be interested in reverting to an older kernel and then working back to where we are today with new source. And nobody would look at alternative kernels (eg. the BSDs). And nobody would just throw in the towel and run Windows. No way, we'll just pony up a butt load of money to McBride and Co. to use the kernel they're trying to steal from us. Cock smoking bitches.
BSD (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
My impressions (Score:5, Interesting)
And, most importantly, not having one central company or organization claiming total control over the OS. One of the things I love about Free Software, especially for the Operating System is that I think it is *crucial* for there to be a viable, widely used Free-as-in-speech OS Platform for everyone in the world to be able to use without it being leveraged to one company's or government's or whatever advantage. A true 'level playing field.'
So, SCO doesn't get it. Darl wants everyone to stop 'crucifying' him and SCO for doing what they "have to" in order to survive and leverage the investment they made in Unix. Everyone is picking on him, especially IBM who are big bullies (note this isn't my opinion - I'm just summarizing McBride). Oh, also SCO likes Open Source and Linux - we aren't out to destroy Linux and Open Source - we just want $700 dollars for every CPU that runs Linux commercially. Don't hate us, we want to co-exist peacefully with Open Source.
Oh, and the best part - the GPL is dead - Open Source isn't dead, just the GPL because it isn't friendly enough to business according to Darl. And, Free (as in beer) linux is dead (nevermind Debian and other non-commercial distros).
Lastly, in the world of Darl McBride, the BSD's don't exist. He didn't mention them ONCE in the presentation. And there were a couple times (Unix History discussion, as well as a few other places) where it would have probably been quite appropriate to mention them. Along those lines, SCO == UNIX, and we own the copyright to ALL UNIX (again what about the BSD's?).
Oh he did clarify that AIX, HP/UX, et al are 'owned' by the respective companies, but that SCO 'controls' all of them as the root of the unix tree.
I dunno. I really at this point just wish SCO would put up or shut up. Show definitely that there is wide-spread infringement instead of just throwing out "We have STRONG IP claims" (Take our word for it). Basically, this issue needs to go to court and be resolved.
Speaking of which, here's the SCO lawsuit scheme: IBM is not a copyright infringment case - it's breach of contract. But if people who use Linux don't buy Unix Licenses, we will sue them for copyright infringement. (Which is basically what they've been saying all along - no surprise there).
So what I hear, when I hear McBride make that statement is IBM probably has the resources and expertise to discredit our copyright infringment claims - so we are going to go after small fish who (we hope) can't reasonably defend against the infringement claims, and gradually build precedent one case at a time and then go after the big companies when we have a few cases behind us that gave us favorable findings.
Re:My impressions (Score:5, Insightful)
So he has no problems with Free-beer style software. He has problems with the GPL. He also said that the GPL can be fine, "if it's modified to be more business freindly".
What the *hell* does "giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it" have to do with "the GPL must be modified"?
At the *very most* SCO can prove that IBM really stole source code and put it in Linux, and then in some strange FANTASY this would lead to SCO owning all of Linux, or Linux being crippled when all that code gets summarily ripped out.
I don't think either thing will happen, since I don't think SCO has a very good case.
But in NO WAY does any of this have anything to do with the validity of the GPL.
Did you READ the interview? He said "If you distribute a proprietary product on a CD with Linux, you must GPL your proprietary product." Or words to taht effect.
Tell THAT to nVidia.
McBride is lying deliberately, or seriously deluded, or seriously misinformed. Whatever else about the case holds, weak or strong, the GPL isn't going anywhere.
remember people: (Score:5, Funny)
To Quote Sontag (Score:5, Interesting)
In that one example, copyrighted code had been misappropriated and there's substantial benefit out there that has still not been rectified. There are other literal copyright infringements that we have not publicly provided, we'll save those for court. "
Linus has always stated that we'll rip everything out if the code was shown. McBride has even mentioned that in interviews and said something like "Hey, that's great! We want that to happen, too."
Bank robbers? Substantial benefit? The truth is that they would rather keep the IP in there and keep the linux kernel, charging us for each CPU.
The only problem is this: What would keep anyone from forking the kernel at the point where all "infringing code" had been ripped out. Sure, the tree would be on fire, but I doubt it would take TOO long for some seriously pissed off coders to re-write the missing items.
I can't wait to watch the flamage in court.
Re:To Quote Sontag (Score:3, Informative)
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Managers like Linux because that tech who lives in his cubicle can administer a whole bunch of them without leaving and they can put them on as many computers as they want without payi
Re:To Quote Sontag (Score:3, Interesting)
Darl's translation (Score:5, Funny)
Which at this point probably resolves down to his own company, their satellites and the law firm they've retained to fight their last ditch effort.
SCO does not want to destroy open source or Linux. With the appropriate checks and balances, open source has merit.
I think he means, if people pay with the appropriate checks, he'll consider the effort worthy of merit.
End users are not safe in taking a wait and see position. SCO is contacting customers and asking them to take a license of litigate position.
IOW, please pay us now so we can show some revenue long enough for the remaining shareholders to cash out before this whole thing implodes. Otherwise, the FBI will bust in your door and cart you off to Guantanamo.
There's no free lunch or free Linux. The value proposition of Linux is UNIX for free. Free models such as free music, free Internet, free bandwidth, and free love haven't worked.
On the other hand, the free mushrooms the guys in the legal department put in my tea this morning do seem to be working.
This country was built on the notion of property ownership and being about to protect one's property. What's left in this company are concepts and ideas. If you take away the ability to protect that, we're reduced our ability to compete as a country
If you don't support our desire to scare the crap out of the public in order to extort money for intellectual property my company had absolutely no hand in creating, then you're some sort of unpatriotic, filthy commie scum.
By the way there is no truth to the rumors that I am violating any patents previously held by the Rumsfeld-Cheney group. I am operating with a legitimate license from the holder of the scare-the-crap-out-of-america patent.
GPL will not survive. Open source will survive, but the GPL will have to be reworked in a way that is more pro-business.
By pro business I mean pro-big-mega-corporations that deserve to profit from the innovation of others who have the audacity to claim such work that we can exploit be donated to the public domain.
SCO will prevail in its legal battle. SCO is now worth $200 million and has $60 million in the bank. SCO is committed to seeing this through.
Bill's check cleared! Bill's check cleared!
We are also introducing an exciting new product in cooperation with Kool-Aid and the government of Columbia. Look for it soon.
Linux will not be free.
But a woman who is willing to trade "love" may be able to get a discount on the enterprise edition. I.M. my AOL handle, "sexy14yoGRRL" for more details.
Re:200 million dollars???Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
See
Why doesn't anyone ask the unanswerable question? (Score:5, Interesting)
What can SCO possibly answer, while maintaining that the GPL is illegitimate?
Re:Why doesn't anyone ask the unanswerable questio (Score:5, Interesting)
The original copyright point raised by CoughDropAddict holds. The GPL is a set of rules that the author of a copyrighted work applies to other people who wish to use that work. If SCO doesn't agree to those rules, standard copyright laws apply - meaning SCO can NOT legally sell the product. It's not their IP.
They can sell Samba. They can diss the GPL. They can't do both.
GPL and DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought Darl was asinine before, but this is just ridiculous.
Linux people are not the only people against the DMCA Darl! The reason people oppose it is because it infringes upon our rights and every Tom-Dick-and Jackass Corporation in America is trying to invoke the DMCA for things that it shouldn't be invoked for. It's akin to people filing for patents on such things as "one click shopping", etc.
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" (Score:5, Funny)
what it comes down to: (Score:5, Informative)
If I'm Merrill Lynch and have a trading application proprietary to Merrill Lynch and deploy it across all my trading desks, if that deployment occurred where the Linux OS and app are distributed togetherm there are arguments that Merrill would have to provide their proprietary trading application in source form to everyone. That's a problem.
Go read the GPL. Nowhere is that said. This is purely a lie to get people to not invest in linux, or to use it; the only other alternatives, of course, being SCO... and MS. SCO is likely to benefit little - their technology isn't capable of doing what most people use linux for. So MS gets the customers. Combine that with the SCO discount for converting to MS, and everything else...
I'ts pretty damned obvious to those that know even the most basic things about the GPL and IP law that SCO has no case. McBride makes inference after inference, and all of which are lies. Add them up, and to most people, it's a convincing case. Now to get this thing into court and smack him in the mouth.
Given MS's history of buying politicians....
Where do I go to learn to lie this well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems eerily similar to statements that might be made about the lawyers, accountants, and bankers that cooked the Enron books. They are worth every penny because they raise stock prices. They are now shareholders so they have a great incentive to make the stock price stay high using every trick in the book, legal or illegal. I suspect that even if Boies loses his license over this, and pays a fee, he will still be a wealthy man. It might even be worth a couple years in a country club jail.
That's the great untold story no one even asks about. We have over two million servers actively running today. Customers continue to come to us. We have laid out a growth map that will be significant for our customers. In the next year expect Legend, which will take OpenServer and update it. Longer term, expect SVR 6, which will be 64-bit Unix on Intel. That is a few years out.
as compared to
We are informed that participants in the Linux industry have attempted to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. They have been somewhat successful in those efforts and similar efforts and success will likely continue. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.
These type of cases seem to years in the making, and i am sure there will be point when Boise will stop accepting stock and want a greater portion of cash. I suspect there is also a point at which new investors might stop pouring money into SCO, and two or three license agreement only generate so much cash. Not to mention the burn of normal operating costs. Can anyone expect them to survive the 'few year' to 'SVR 6'. And if they win and actually get a couple billion from IBM, will there be any reason to develop for a 64 bit platform. It will be MS model all over again. We own your desktop. We have all the cash. We will tell you what you need.
The second dial is the 2.5 million Linux servers out there today that are paired with our intellectual property in them. We have a licensed product $699, $1,399. Chris [Sontag] is driving that and that's another multi-billion-dollar revenue oppotunity
The third bucket has to do with the IBM settlement. We filed that at $3 billion. Every day they don't resolve this, the AIX meter is still ticking....
I seem to remember an interesting ruling several years ago. It basically said you cannot advertise certain things about certain products at certain prices unless a significant amount or product had been sold at that price. Although that ruling applied to the retail chain, I would think that publicly saying that revenue is going to be generated from a product that you do not even own and have no reasonable exception of owning with the constraints of normal sense would be really close to lying. The funny thing is he separates the ruling in the IBM from expected income from Linux users. The two are in fact connected. The later would tend to negate the former, though the later will not guarantee the former. One really wonders if the clock it winding down faster on AIX or SCO.
Don't just sit there, whine and complain. (Score:5, Informative)
Armageddon (Score:5, Insightful)
From dictionary.com:
Armageddon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (arm-gdn)
n.
1. Bible. The scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world.
2. A decisive or catastrophic conflic
Before you mod this "off topic" or rant about another SCO article, think about what the this really means for IT in general, and open source in particular. This is THE final, decisive battle between the forces of good and evil.
MS may have a hundred billion dollars in the bank, but they have passed their zenith, and are now slowly, but surely sliding backwards. Country by country, city by city, company by company they are finally starting to lose. Like a fist full of sand, the harder they sqeeze, the more it slips through their fingers.
I don't think the problem is guys like Darl doesn't get it. He does get it, and it probably keeps him awake at night.
Re:Armageddon (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. And I thought I read too much Slashdot.
More Darl on Crack (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO owns agreements to all UNIX vendors
SCO owns all UNIX System V copyrights
SCO owns all claims for violation of UNIX licenses.
SCO controls UNIX System V derivative works.
I suspect that Novell might just have a few things to say about that!
my fave quotes (Score:5, Funny)
McBride: It's a range. Those who are directly selling SCO Unix products, are cheering us on ...
Stop the presses, someone sold SCO Unix last year?!
McBride: .... Those who have drifted over to the Linux camp are confused.
Indeed, I can't figure out what those idiots at SCO are up to.
McBride: My first reaction was we needed to create a counterbalance [to the vocal open sourcers]. We're on the side of the silent majority...
Eh? Let's see, for ages we've all had to listen to and counter his company's Microsoft funded bullshit, press releases and amazing old media broadsides. He's been saying all sorts of stuff designed to stirr doubt deep in the hearts of PHB and it's been reported by every WinTel rag on earth, but he reagards himself as "silent". Somehow people who have to reassure their bosses not to give in to SCO's extortion of end users is somehow "vocal"? The free software's statements are all reactions to this turkey. If some people get angry, it's because of the volume of ignorant and wrong nonsense this man has been able to generate - you need to buy a $700 license for every Linux box you own because IBM put "secret" SCO code into the kernel that SCO published openly under the GPL but refuses to specify. It's madening and hardly "right".
More McBitch: This is about our IP! ... IBM is the master of creating an illusion that they're being attacked by this big brutal bully SCO when they're the ones attacking us. They're the ones doing all the behind-the-scenes work.
Oh sure, Dayrl, and I'm Steve Barkto. IBM must be running the Free Software Society. Tell me all about it. The whole world of knowledgable computing says you are full of it. What do you produce? Some poor woman who's BA was in French who had to sign a massively restrictive NDA to look at publically published and GPL'd code next to snippets of your ancient Unix? Give me a break. Put up or shut up and quit threatening the world and maybe, just maybe people will think your extortion and stock fraud days are behind you.
We early on looked at GPL-related issues and felt it was an Achilles heel for IBM but we didn't open them up initially. We didn't want to confuse a clear-cut contract issue [with IBM] with the untested GPL and other issues. But when IBM dragged GPL onto the table, our lawyers started sharpening their steak knives. 'Ok, if that's what you want to talk about , we'll talk about it.'
Oh yeah, you were forced to call the GPL a cancer, but you hated it all along. Bzzzt! Your case of trade secret violation got blown out of the water because your company published said traid secrets openly and under the GPL. You can't fall back to copyright violations, because you can't really find any infringing code. So, you are left with this crack house attack on the GPL.
If you take IBM out of the equation, Linux would not be growing up, it would not be SMP-enabled, it would not be multi processing, scaling up to hundreds of servers. It is IBM that is enabling that.
There he goes again, taking credit for stuff that his crappy Unix can't do.
VARBusiness: Are customers changing their Linux purchasing pattern since SCO sent out warning letters?
McBride: A research report came out saying 80 percent of users had not slowed down. Our take on that is 20 percent have. So one out of five.
Thanks Dayrl, that will come in handy when you get sued for the damages all your BS has done. I'd love to see Red Hat pin the end of their retail distro on you and strip off some of those $20,000,000 Microsoft has funded you with.
If you look at the GPL, it couldn't be more clear, they either have to pull [the offending code] or shut down the distribution. The things we're laying claim to are things you can't pull out very easily....it's very difficult to yank this stuff out.
Right. Everyone is begging for the proof and the code they can shut this idiot up by rewriting that supposed code. It's not there.
OK, I hate everything this idiot says -5 flamebait article.
Re:my fave quotes (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah... SCO once again pushes the envelope...
I guess I had better pull the plug on that 64bit linux server I built, it is in "future breach" of the SCO's groundbreaking 64 bit support... Thank goodness it is not multi-CPU.
Q.
Of course SCO wants Linux to stay alive (Score:3, Funny)
abSCOnding with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. You have to have both sets of source code. Now suppose you find identical code. How do you tell which direction the copying was done?
The law does go lenient on criminals that turn themselves in. And in most cases it is very lenient when it is an obvious case of a mistake (not that a bank robbery would be, which is where Darl's analogy breaks down). In cases of intellectual property, where it can be shown the infringement was unintentional, courts very often are lenient, letting the "perpetrator" off easy, usually with just actual economic damages and legal costs (these things can vary depending on how well the defendant cooperates).
So let's suppose IBM did contribute SCO intellectual property to Linux, as alleged. The case is against IBM directly, so IBM could be liable for at least the economic losses and legal costs, and maybe more if it can be show there were things like intent.
But what about the rest of the Linux Community? In a normal case, specific infringments would be identified. Linus will most certainly tear that part of the code out and new original development will take place lightning fast, and a new version of the 2.4 kernel (maybe even the 2.2 kernel) will be out in a few weeks. The 2.6 kernel will end up being squeaky clean.
All SCO will get is past infringement losses, possibly limited to not more than would have been earned for that piece of crap they dare call Unix. What they would never get ... will never get ... is revenue for anything in the future. They would make some money, but they would not have solid future revenues which is what actually drives up equity values. It's future earnings (on everyone else's real work) that they are trying to lock in for themselves (which they can't do if Linus tears out any questionable code, which he is sure to do once it becomes known as such).
GPL doesn't give a warranty!?! (Score:5, Informative)
Last I checked that's what the MS end user license agreement says:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty referenced below is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any documentation or packaging. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support services. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
Sontag admits SCO isn't helping (Score:3, Interesting)
Sontag admits that SCO is not releasing the information required to rectify the situation and, if SCO shows which code might be misappropriated, Linux leaders will remove the offending code.
But there are over one million lines of code that we have identified that are derivative works by IBM and Sequent that have been contributed into Linux that we have identified and there's been no effort by Linux leaders to start acting and rectify that situation.
But Sontag also claims Linux leaders aren't trying to rectify the situation... Sigh.
Unreal (Score:4, Insightful)
Rule #1 - if you stand to gain from this claim, it's going to have to be verified by a neutral third party and proper research, because we don't trust you.
"Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal."
There it is, in black and white. War.
"Basically the GPL is countering U.S. Copyright law. Is IBM on the side of free software while they are one of the largest IP and IT firms in the world trying to protect their own patents and copy rights? It's just the most bizarre juxtaposition... . They're supporting something that's very unfriendly to copyrights."
What??? Has this guy even READ the GPL? The GPL rests entirely on copyright law! It's just doing something that isn't normally done by commercial types. RTFLicense. This guy sounds like he needs to pry apart copyright and profit in his brain.
"Underneath all this is hard-core capitalism."
Welcome to the powerful world of volunteers. Kernal aside, a lot of the end user work in Linux is not by companies. If a company or an industry gets messed up enough, they just might find themselves competing with volunteers. Welcome to your nightmare - night of the undead competition.
"We just said we were going to start investigating IP issues, and IBM said, 'You're just giving Bill Gates an early Christmas present.' Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about? This was the immediate reaction at IBM and the open source guys. Unfortunately for them, it's just not reality."
If this guy is this clueless he has no business being a CEO in the software industry. Whatever their intent, the net result is indeed early Christmas in Redmond.
"To the extent that we have to take [Linux] down and put it on its back, we're fully prepared and willing to do that."
Indeed. I don't SCO is ready to face what that would mean - the rise of GNU Hurd. Whatever we may think about Richard Stallman, if SCO somehow puts this through there's going to be a retreat to the hard line FSF position on a lot of fronts, and GNU Hurd in full bloom on L4 might be more than any of the unix guys are ready for. SCO might find itself utterly irrelevant, on Linux IP or SCO Unix. Hardware wasn't ready for microkernels a decade ago, and microkernels weren't ready for prime time. But if we have to start fresh, to avoid any possible "IP" contamination, they're gonna find themselves wishing they had never said anything at all. Most operating system research hasn't been implimented practically over the last few decades. Wanna find out what the future is like, today?
0x01 (Score:3, Informative)
I would love to see this guy hanged. If I ever see him on the street, he better watch out.
Two Quotes (Score:3, Funny)
This shows a complete lack of any moral value whatsoever. Completely gone. Guess what - if that many people get mad, you're not doing the right thing! It doesn't matter how much money you can make, you still shouldn't do it. (To put it another way [groklaw.net], "Last I checked, it wasn't my job to sit around the table carving the roast beef for the Whos down in Whoville.")
And my favorite, hopefully prophetic, quote which McBride attributes to IBM's lawyers:
The big guys? (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, Darl, the big guys aren't out to get you anymore than I am out to get a mosquito that keeps buzzing around my head. You keep pissing them off and eventually they will want to swat you
Now the little guys, all of us linux users and many slashdotters alike whom you are pissing off a great deal: we'd definately like to see you suffer a painful and humiliating spiral down the corporate toilet. But the big guys have a bigger flyswatter, so you probably notice it coming a lot sooner...
nothing to worry about (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who disputes this please state which of the following facts you object to:
- Copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide, for a limited time, who should and who should not copy their work.
- Without explicit permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent, it would be an offence to make and distribute copies - whether verbatim or modidied - of a copyrighted work.
- Section 1 of the GPL gives users explicit permission to distribute verbatim copies as per (2) above provided that certain conditions are met.
- Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL give users explicit permission to make and distribute modified copies and derivative works as per (2) above provided that certain conditions are met.
You may already have certain fair dealing rights in relation to software licenced under the GPL, but such rights vary from one jurisdiction to another. Many copyright holders don't give out permission so freely, but the law doesn't stop you letting other people copy your work if you want them to. All that could ever possibly happen from the GPL coming to court would be vindication for the GPL. Contrast that with certain EULAs being tested in court. The MS EULA, for instance, would almost certainly be laughed out of UK or German courts. That would hurt the GPL's credibility, but it wouldn't do Microsoft any favours either.If IBM, or anyone, has knowingly placed source code in the Linux kernel {and therefore subjected it to the GPL} without having the right to, then they have violated copyright law. This will have to be debated in court, and then the disputed code will have to come to light, otherwise the case will be summarily dismissed. The Kernel Developers - who can show that they have acted in good faith and exercised due diligence at every stage - will then be able to remove any infringing code. In the unlikely event that the kernel developers are ordered to pay damages, they will have the right to sue whoever committed the original infringement. However, such damages are likely to be for a nominal sum {$1?} on account of SCO's refusal to show the code in question sooner.
And if the unthinkable happens - if, and it could only ever happen by some massive brain-fart, the GPL is ruled invalid, the disputed source code is not shown and Linux is declared illegal in all versions - then there is always FreeBSD, already proven not to be SCO's property.
SCO hires Body Guards (Score:3, Informative)
Where are the brave OSS guys now? (Score:3, Interesting)
After reading his waffling and calming myself down a bit, I realise some things, which follow:
1.Every time a question is posed about SCO's products he comes out with very obvious marketing speak and hubris about how exited SCO resellers are and about the supposed 2 million servers (do cash registers count as servers?) running SCO warez. This should be blindly obvious. It would be marketing suicide and almost unheard of for any CEO to admit that the SEC filings were in any way truthful about the true state of the company. Why hasn't anyone thought to ask him about the SEC filings his own company made????
2.SCO's case, as far as I can tell from the respective IBM and SCO court filings, is on weak ground at best. SCO has yet to answer IBM's request on a line for line clarification of exactly which files are infringing SysV R4 copyright. They have claimed in their answer to IBM that some 531 files are infringing, with some 30'000 lines. This is not anywhere near the "half a million lines" that he talks about in public. But he hasn't specified any lines directly. Why???????????
3.SCO distributed Linux for a long time after they had started their legal proceedings, and I'm damn sure this is going to have an effect on the case. Why isn't this point raised in press interviews???
4.SCO's public accusations and threats are almost certainly going to be taken into account in the case. One must note that McBride has not once talked specifically about any company that he will threaten with the $699/$1399 charge. This is obviously because once he does that, he faces being sued by that company for extortion. Almost all of SCO's public speech is stock value influencing bluff. And no one thought to ask him about a specific company???
5. McFuck finally mentioned that BSD is in the clear, but in the same sentence mentions that BSD code is in Linux without the copyright information, yet makes no mention about SCO products using the same code. And no one thought to ask????
6. McBrat says that Samba is not infringing anything, so SCO can use it. Nice of him isn't it? It fits in with his strategy of trying to weaken the GPL by appealing to marketing greed that is so fucking rampant on Wall Street. He wants it "friendlier" to business. It should be obvious that he wants to save his arse for distributing stuff under the GPL for so long, and the fact that he faces copyright infringement of his own even if the GPL is invalid.
I realise that many prominent GPL contributors don't want to frighten off businesses by suing SCO for copyright infringement or breach of contract, including Linus. Yet everyone who has been accused publicly of something by SCO has gotten involved whether they wanted it or not. And this irritates me. Why do Linus and Co not defend themselves? Why do they not start legal action against SCO? Why is it that almost no one from the OSS crowd ever tries to speak to standard industry rags and make decent legal points about SCO? I get so fricking mad when Linus does his dumb hippy free love act in the press interviews until he finally gets subpoenaed by SCO's team of legal drug dealers. Why the fuck does no one stand up in public for fuck sake?
Sorry for the rant, but this whole SCO thing is so publicly damaging for the GPL and Linux, and the fact way the media and the stock markets work is that one is automatically guilty when one makes no good comment.
Re:McBride's Funniest Quips! (Score:3, Interesting)
i forgot the numbers(they've been posted to sco articles quite frequently).
do they match up even nearly with 1million=20%?
his an asshat of course, i wonder if he could answer how many lines of code sco claims to have ownership of are used in a compile of a kernel meant for normal x86 desktop? zero?
I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I can't help but remember that the fate of Linux and the GPL are about to be handed over to the same legal system that got OJ acquitted and awarded millions to some idiot who couldn't figure out that driving a car with hot coffee between her laps was a bad idea.
The way this McBride talks (IBM, Red Hat, HP, now Novell, next *BSD, then you and me?), it looks like lawsuits will be flying around for a long, long time. Add to this the fact that (yeah, yeah, IANAL) that stupid laws like the DMCA seem give his company at least some grounds for his lawsuits (and besides, who knows if IBM et al. didn't do some really stupid things?).
Who wins in the end? You already know of course: Bill.
Prove me wrong, please!
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Informative)
This one is actually not a good case to use. One version of the facts of this case includes the information that McDonalds in fact heated their coffee to 190 degrees or more, when the normal temperature is usually more like 120 degrees. And numerous people had been scalded and complained, and McDonald's refused to do anything about it or to change their process in any way. And th
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh...wait...
Products should do what they are expected to do. If by NOT doing what they are expected to do they can have an injurious result, the manufacturers should fix it. If they blatantly refuse, they should be penalized. Just because it's a lady in a car with hot coffee doesn't make it any different than Monty Python's candie
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, she wasn't an idiot, and she didn't get millions.
If you investigate the "idiot's" case, instead of parroting the meme, you will find a couple of things you may not have known.
First, the coffee was not "hot". It was near-boiling. McDonalds in New Mexico had apparently kept the coffee super-hot - 180 degrees or higher - both to satisfy health inspectors who were concerned about coffee sitting in pots for hours, and to keep the coffee hotter longer for take-out orders.
Secondly, there were over 700 cases of such cases of people being injured by the boiling coffee.
Third: the woman wasn't driving, or doing anything else other than prying the lid off of the coffee cup between her thighs. The coffee splashed on her pants, and soaked her skin. She suffered third degree burns on her genitals, perineum, buttocks, and inner thighs. She underwent eight days of skin grafts and debridement (think of a steel wool pad scouring the subdermal layers of your now-skinless penis, boys). Normally hot coffee made at home doesn't make third degree burns; it is served at around 140 degrees. Near-boiling coffee, at 180-190 degrees, which McDs had been doing, does. I can add a personal observation: I've been burned by normal coffee, and also I've fallen into a puddle of boiling hot water. Believe me, 30 degrees or more variance determines the difference between a second and a third degree burn.
Fourth. She originally asked to settle her claim for 20 grand. McD's refused her offer.
Fifth. She didn't make millions. Here's a quote from ballinlaw.com:
"The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages (money to compensate the injured party for the injury sustained). The judge reduced this amount to $160,000 because the jury believed the plaintiff was 20 percent at fault. The jury also awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jury considered McDonald's actions reckless and willful, but despite this, the trial court reduced the punitive award to $480,000, which was considered three times her compensatory damages. "
Six. McD's in New Mexico reduced the serving temperature from 190 to 158 after the punitive damages.
http://ballinlaw.com/mcdonald.htm
Seven. The large judgement was not awarded because the woman was burned; it was because McD's had served the coffee at boiling temperature for years, ignoring over 700 instances of scaled customers. They found them willfully negligent for not reducing the temperature long before the 80+ year old lady lost the skin on her lap.
Here's some more documentation:
http://www.mattenlaw.com/FSL5CS/ar ticles/articles6
"The coffee was 40 degrees hotter than most other restaurants keep it - close to the 212 degree boiling point.
A national burn center had issued a public warning not to serve hot beverages over 135 degrees.
There were 700 other burn claims against McDonald's before this injury, yet no action was taken.
The victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle. "
"The jury in this case decided that the coffee was a defective product and that McDonald's had violated products liability laws that assure that consumers are protected.
The jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages (to compensate her for past and future pain, suffering, emotional distress, lost wages, and medical bills). The jury also decided that she was 20% at fault and reduced her damage award by that amount.
The jury also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. However, the judge reduced the award of punitive damages to $480,000. The case settled for an undisclosed amount before it was appealed."
Now that we've discussed the facts of the case, I'm up for some editorial comment.
BIG point: The vast, vast majority of liability cases do no
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, however, that Mickey D's was liable for this. I don't agree, however, that stupidity should be rewarded.
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Chances are, a significant portion of her "reward" were used to repay her medical bills.
As the parent poster mentioned, and you seem to have ignored, much of the treatment involved skin grafts to her inner thighs and sexual parts. If you consider having McDonald's pay somebody to scrub the remains of scalded flesh from your genitals and inner thighs to be a "reward", then I suppose your post i
Avoid SCO articles -- save sanity (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way -- I think I'm going to skip these SCO articles from now on. CRN's interview with McBride was just so frustrating to read -- that guy is such a snake and such a master of spin, it pisses me off to no end, and there's not a thing I can do about it. If this case were going to be resolved anytime soon, I'd stick around to cheer, but as it is, I have no desire to sit around int
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:4, Informative)
The facts of this case have been so misrepresented it's become an urban myth.
It was February 27, 1992. Her name was Stela Liebeck and she was a very active 79 year old retired department store clerk in Albuquerque NM. She and her grandson drove her son to the airport one morning and on the way back they stopped at McDonalds drive through for breakfast. Her grandson was driving. The grandson parked the car so she could put sugar and cream in her coffee. She had trouble removing the lid so she put it between her legs for leverage. When she got the top off, the scalding coffee spilled into her lap. (Most restaurants serve coffee that is 130-150 degrees, Mcdonalds coffee is 180.) She was wearing a sweat suit, it held the 180 degree liquid against her skin and helped retain the heat. She suffered third degree burns to her genitals, buttocks, and legs. She was hospitalized for 8 days, immobilized at home for 3 weeks, then went back to the hospital for skin grafts. It was an excruciatingly painful and VERY expensive experience. Luckily, her insurance DID pay most of her bills. In 1994 Stella simply wrote to McDonalds and asked them to lower the temperature of their coffee. She did not plan on suing at the time. Her familly felt that she was due $2000 for lost wages and various expenses. They had to pay the insurance deductible and her daughter had taken time off work to care for her. McDonalds offered her $800. The family hired a lawyer and he asked McDonalds to give Stella $100,000 for her injuries and $300,000 in punitive damages. The lawyer tried to settle the case before they went to trial. McDonalds' position was that Stella knew she was buying hot coffee and spilled it herself due to her own neglect. They knew that they were not liable for someone spilling coffee on themselves. If they took responsibility for this injury, they would have to take responsibility for untold numbers of other things that people do to themselves. They were technically absolutely right. The plaintiff (that's Stella's lawyer really), said that McDonald's knew that their coffee was not drinkable at 180 degrees and that they knew there was a risk of severe burns, and that they had decided NOT to warn their customers and had NO INTENTION of changing their policies. He also showed large color photos of Stella's burns and reconstructive surgery. This is where it gets fun. McDonald's defense lawyers did themselves more harm than good by pressing their point and case which was LEGALLY SOUND, but EMOTIONALLY OFFENSIVE. It turns out that McDonalds had incurred over SEVEN HUNDRED lawsuits from their coffee. A quality assurance supervisor dismissed the complaints as "statistically insignificant". The McDonald's lawyers asserted that Stella was asking for too much money because she was old and therefore didn't have much use left in her injured body parts, therefore she deserved less money. The lawyers also noted that Stella hadn't LEAPT from her bucket seat, so the coffee stayed in her lap making her burns worse. In other words, McDonalds made themselves look like insensitive pricks to the jury, and the jury didn't like it one damned bit. Now for the financial facts: The jury awarded Stella $200,000 compensation for her injuries, but found her 20% at fault, so they lowered it to $160,000. The jury also found McDonald's guilty of "Wanton, willful, reckless, or malicious conduct", which is grounds for awarding punitive damages in the US. The jury was fundamentally disturbed by McDonald's behavior and attitude and they wanted to send a message to the company bigwigs. They based the amount of punitive damages awarded on two days worth of McDonald's coffee sales. $2.7 Million dollars. The judge reduced the award to $670,000. McDonald's appealed and the case went back to court. Stella and McDonald's eventually settled for an undisclosed amount of money. McDonald's has since lowered the temperature of their coffee. Please, research your facts before you speak. -kate
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
If she'd just burned herself a little, nobody would have given a shit. This was coffee that was heated
Experimenting with different scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
I go to court, suing the maker of the teapot: I would get laughed out of the court.
- You come to my house, boil water and _you_ pour it on my lap, I would sue you and get damages.
- You come to my house, boil water, and _I_ pour it on my lap.
I go to court, suing you for boiling that water: I would get laughed out of court.
Change of scenario...
Instead of me (a man), assume I am an elderly woman.
Instead of my house, assume this takes place in a car.
You (still)
Re:No, it _is_ her fault (Score:3, Informative)
Pal, you are a good example of a waste of air.
This 79 year old woman made a mistake. It seems she realized that, since initially all she did was ask McD
Re:No, it _is_ her fault (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, at most restaurants (McDonald's included) it's made by steam. Water is boiled, the steam is collected and when it condenses it drips through the coffee grounds. By the time it's servable, it can have cooled to quite a lower temperature than the 212 F required to boil the water in the first place.
A simple test [vanfirm.com] was done to compare coffee temperatures, and nobody came within 20 degrees F of the 180 McDonald's kept their
Re:Oh, spare us (Score:3, Funny)
212F is the temperature where water boils
32F where it freezes.
Originally 100F was supposed to be the rectal temperature of a person, but it is closer to 98 and 99.
The system is based on the two highly logical numbers 212 and 32, because 32 was the number of toes that some english king had.
That same king had a feverish aunt, and that aunt gave inspiration to the definition of other measures. 100F was the rectal temperature of that aunt. A yard was the distance two
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the legal system ruled it was a monopoly etc., but it was the political system that let them get away with it.
Re:Not just a hypocrite... but outdated too. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GPL...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
And those are what most people would call uninformed arguments. Darl, would you please take a second (OK, a few minutes), read the GPL, see if that argument makes any sense at all, and get back to us.
I suspect that it will take a relatively low-paid law professor to explain this to some very overpaid lawyers.
One of these overpaid lawyers seems to be challenged by the c
Re:It's a dirty job but someone has to do it...me (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the copyright holder should get their day in court. The copyright holder should also try to mitigate damages -- indeed, their ability to get the court's assistance will be severely limited if they don't. As of yet, they refuse to let us know exactly what we can do to reduce their damages (by refusing to identify the infringing code for removal). This is not consistant with behaviour with this allegation being true.
And consider the lawyer...David Boies. In case you've forgotten what what he's done...
No, I haven't forgotten about Boies losing every high-profile case he's been involved in -- and for good reason. Have you read SCO's legal briefs? They're downright amateurish next to IBM's filings.
Do you think the diligent researchers on Wall Street are confused by McBride's proclamations? No, they do research.
I'll believe that their research is effective when my own starts backing it up.