Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government The Courts News

Groklaw Debunks SCO's ELF Heist 317

Posted by michael from the smell-of-fear dept.
Xenographic writes "Following SCO's earlier claims that ELF really belonged to them, in this Groklaw article, we find enough proof to show that SCO does not and never could have owned ELF or any part of it. Moreover, it shows that their real motive in this is to desperately raise new issues to stave off IBM's motion for summary judgement on IBM's 10th counterclaim. For those who don't remember, that's the one where IBM asked for certification that their Linux activities did not violate any of SCO's copyrights, and SCO replied (with forked tongue) that the case against IBM wasn't about copyrights... Let the "Santa Claus Organization" jokes commence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groklaw Debunks SCO's ELF Heist More

Groklaw Debunks SCO's ELF Heist

Comments Filter:

  • SCO Yard Sale (Score:3, Funny)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:09AM (#9779623) Homepage Journal
    3....2....1.... BANKRUPT!
  • ...what stupid people can do with a lot of money.

  • Chewbacka plantiff? (Score:5, Funny)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:10AM (#9779643)
    I mean we have the Chewbacka defense, is SCO modeling a new plantiff strategy, the Chewbacka complaint?

  • Elves (Score:3, Funny)

    by Grond_the_Hammer ( 784712 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:11AM (#9779645)
    I always thought Elves were imaginary anyway...

    • Re:Elves (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I heard that if you're naughty, Santa will have his badass war elf, Legolas, fck you up with arrows.

  • Well damnit.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by agent dero ( 680753 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:11AM (#9779653) Homepage
    I could have done that, I mean it's not rocke..er quantu...er..computer science.

    Common sense.

  • The Media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob McCown ( 8411 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:13AM (#9779672)
    Is any of this getting press in the media, besides these odd articles at non-mainstream news sites? Or investiment news sites? I can't imagine all this SCO news exists in a vacumn.

    • Re:The Media (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sepper ( 524857 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:28AM (#9779862) Journal
      Main Press?

      Hahaha! This stuff is WAY too geeky for any average person to even care about.

      Think about it for a second, it's all computer stuff AND lawyer details... As geeks, we all know it's mostly garbage-claims, but we still NEED Groklaw to clear things up.

      Unless Linux get more mainstream press (something other than hype) you won't see this. Main press is more interested in hype stuff (like the lastest Ipod model or how's going to be the next American Idol,etc..) than actual more boring facts...

      still, you can try news.google.com [google.com] for SCO news in the main press...

      • Need more linux stores (Score:5, Interesting)

        by zogger ( 617870 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:55AM (#9780114) Homepage Journal
        We need more whitebox shops in towns all over to start selling linux or installing it. Put up a big sign "windows viruses eliminated forever!" that would be enough to get a lot of people inside the store at least. Then if they saw a few machines setup running some good different distros with all the apps that come with them, a lot of folks would think about it. Let people play with it a little, then they can see there's enough similarities to be comfortable with it, and enough installed apps that they probably wouldn't need much more. For what people pay for their semi monthly windows debugging at the shop, they could get a shiny new distro installed and have a bit of handholding in the store to show them how to use it.

        Personally, I just am not going to worry about ANYTHING that might come from the SCO issues. Initially I thought they might have something, but now it's obvious they have less than squat.

        If I could figure out a way to be two people I would do the linux whitebox shop myself, but I got a job now.....

        • If I could figure out a way to be two people I would do the linux whitebox shop myself, but I got a job now.....

          Well, I've just started a small business, but mostly doing service, as I didn't have a lot of money to put into stock, and couldn't justify spending several thousand dollars for computer systems as floor demos, considering I'll make maybe a hundred bucks on each.

          I could put one cheap-assed PC-Chips or similar system together, though, running SuSE or Mandrake, for customers to play with. I a

          • ...spending several thousand dollars for computer systems as floor demos, considering I'll make maybe a hundred bucks on each...

            Most whitebox makers I know make far less than a hundred bucks on a single box. They actually make more selling parts and service than computers.

          • Do not, I repeat do not invest thousands of dollars for floor demos, have one computer for demo, and make that the same computer you do inventory and crap on (of course secure the hell outta that part of it, perferably keep the confidential info on a removable harddrive, or on the network, and keep it disconnected for demo use) put the top items you want to sell on it. Thats it, don't even think about carraying an inventory of more that what you are going to sell in the next week, shelf life for computer pa

        • Re:Need more linux stores (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @12:30PM (#9780555) Homepage
          Here is the thing. you CAN be sucessful at it but you will need to set up a support center. call in line and tech support. people dont give a rat's ass about what OS they run. they care about if they can use it.

          will you be available to help them when the Comcast High speed internet moron shows up at heir house and says" Where's the windows CD?", "My drivers wont load, your computer is broke.", " your internet will not work without our special software"...

          How about at 9:00pm at night when they want to install a software app? (note sell CD-r's with tested RPM's of games and aps for your customers! hell profit making possibilities are endless with this!) are you going to set up a website that will filter them to the software they ca neasily install??

          if I buy a computer from dell and I'm the typical drooling moron, I can call them to help me. (yes even at a cost) same for Compusa purchases... I can buy a "tech support" card and talk to a guy/gal that will help me figure out that complex and hidden "search" feature.

          you want to make it a success? build a support center around it... like APPLE did. selling a computer preinstalled and configured and then afte r taking their check you scream RTFM!!!! LOL LOL LOL in their faces will not make you money.

          and that is where linux retailers fail miserably.

          if you want to sell it and make money at it... SUPPORT IT!

          • Re:Need more linux stores (Score:4, Insightful)

            by kuom ( 253900 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @01:11PM (#9781072)

            Linux is the OS that works against itself the most.

            I love the choices I have with Linux, at least a few dozens flavors of kernel, hundreds of distros, and countless tarballs, RPMs, and DEBs for me to choose from. But when you want to support these countless and fast growing numbers, it becomes a nightmare.

            My company just converted over to Linux recently (every desktop, servers were all already on Linux/BSD). One of the biggest challenge we had was how we are going to handle support. The best solution was to have a contractor company to support us so we don't waste our valuable resources. The idea is to have one of our own employees pick up the phone, and have someone walk him/her through the problems (or even have the support person control the desktop via VNC or krfb).

            But do you know how hard it is to find good support for Linux? We had a rough time finding a company that would do what we want, and to add on top of that, the ones we find only support some generic dsitros. We are not running any special kernels or distros here, we are using a major distro, the only difference is we modified the GNOME desktop a little to fit the needs of each department. But this becomes insanely difficult to for someone else (a contractor) to support remotely.

            In the end, we went ahead and did the support ourselves. People bitch and whine about how the desktop is different than their Windows XP desktop now, but we always through this question back at them: "Can you still do your job?" And that silenced most of the complaints. Users were complaining about not being able to play certain games online (especially from MSN), or not being able to run certain programs that they downloaded.

            But with home users, you are not so lucky. Regular home users expect to have total freedom over their machine. To some, this means having root access. And we all know root access in the hands of the not-so-smart people is a dangerous thing. And it only takes a couple of these morons to suck up all of your time and resources.

            I am not saying that Linux on the desktop doesn't work. It does, everyone from my company is using it. The problem is supporting the various flavors of Linux distributions. It's easier for Dell to train their support techs to know all flavors of Windows, but it would be impossible to train a staff of support techs to know lots of Linux distros + different windows managers. An user running GNOME and an user running Enlightenment think they are on very different machines, while they could both be running the same version fo the same distro.

      • Lucky for us. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LordPixie ( 780943 )
        Main press is more interested in hype stuff (like the lastest Ipod model...

        Thank god we don't peruse places that hype the latest iPod model [slashdot.org]. No siree. We subscribe to Slashdot: Bastion of Stuff that Matters.

        Please. Slashdot is just as interested in hype, fluff, and FUD as any other big news source. We just want ours geek flavored. Compare any article with the headline/summary, and it's pretty obvious. This is an entertainment website. While it certainly serves lots of news, let's not jump on th

    • Re:The Media (Score:4, Informative)

      by julesh ( 229690 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:37AM (#9779957)
      Well, the Financial Times has had two articles on this over the last couple of days. With a fairly pro-linux attitude, by the looks of it -- one of them starts like this:

      A US judge yesterday dealt the controversial SCO Group a significant setback in its campaign to profit from Linux by throwing out much of the software company's lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler.

    • Re:The Media (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:38AM (#9779961) Journal
      If you read this earlier article on Groklaw [groklaw.net], you'll see plenty of quotes to show that much of the mainstream media is quite clueless. There aren't many who have caught on yet, although investors don't seem to value the stock any more. Then again, there are still those mysterious end of the day rallies, which some say are indications that someone is "painting the tape" (e.g. manipulating the stock price--not hard to do with a stock like SCOX, apparently).
    • Is any of this getting press in the media, besides these odd articles at non-mainstream news sites?

      No. [google.com] Something like 95% of SCO news hits are from tech sites.

  • Sorry to be a spelling nazi, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it's "tongue". Jesus, people, it's really not that hard to spell.

  • Hmmmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by arch17c7 ( 708577 )
    So does this mean that Will Ferrell might be next on the list of "to-be-sued"? Of course, in hindsight, maybe that one should progress, given the movie that was the result.
  • Ha ha, fooled you. :P

    (I know this is off-topic but I'll take the potential karma hit for the joke only a couple people might get.)

  • Slashdot mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:16AM (#9779718)

    Ah, SCO, SCO, SCO. This latest prank... Where to begin to unravel the latest brainstorm, the claim that ELF belongs to them, that Linux is using it illegally, and that it's the mortar holding the entire kernel together? I am smiling just typing this.

    Here is what the ELF story is about, according to a Linuxworld article [linuxworld.com] by Maureen O'Gara:

    "In 1995, the year Novell sold Unix to the Santa Cruz Operation, an industry group calling itself the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard and to popularize it and streamline PC software development granted users a 'non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license' to the stuff, effectively putting it in the public domain, SCO says.

    "SCOsource chief Chris Sontag, the SCO VP in charge of the company's hate-inducing IP push, claims TISC, which folded immediately after the spec was published, exceeded its rights even though both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee."

    OK. ELF. Here we go. After all the research we have done, here are the conclusions I reach. First, ELF isn't mortar. It's not even in the kernel. It's interface stuff. It's not the only interface one might use, and in fact it replaced a prior interface, so it isn't essential for Linux to keep breathing and life to go on. It'd be annoying but not at all impossible to replace it.

    Second, if TISC overstepped its authority, that is between SCO and SCO, because oldSCO was involved, oldSCO being a member of TISC.

    Third, I don't believe they own it.

    Fourth, Linux is not unique in using ELF.

    Fifth, this is getting silly.

    Let me explain, please, how I reached those conclusions.

    Here's what the TISC document [ddj.com] [PDF], regarding ELF version 1.2, told the world they were intending and what the world could do with ELF:

    "This Executable and Linking Format Specification, Version 1.2, is the result of the work of the Tool Interface Standards (TIS) Committee--an association of members of the microcomputer industry formed to work toward standardization of the software interfaces visible to development tools for 32-bit Intel Architecture operating environments.

    "Such interfaces include object module formats, executable file formats, and debug record information and formats. The goal of the committee is to help streamline the software development process throughout the microcomputer industry, currently concentrating on 32-bit operating environments. To that end, the committee has developed specifications--some for file formats that are portable across leading industry operating systems, and others describing formats for 32-bit Windows * operating systems. Originally distributed collectively as the TIS Portable Formats Specifications Version 1.1, these specifications are now separated and distributed individually.

    "TIS Committee members include representatives from Absoft, Autodesk, Borland International Corporation, IBM Corporation, Intel Corporation, Lahey, Lotus Corporation, MetaWare Corporation, Microtec Research, Microsoft Corporation, Novell Corporation, The Santa Cruz Operation, and WATCOM International Corporation. PharLap Software Incorporated and Symantec Corporation also participated in the specification definition efforts. This specification like the others in the TIS collection of specifications is based on existing, proven formats in keeping with the TIS Committee's goal to adopt, and when necessary, extend existing standards rather than invent new ones.

    "About ELF: Executable and Linking Format The Executable and Linking Format was originally developed and published by UNIX System Laboratories (USL) as part of the Application Binary Interface (ABI). The Tool Interface Standards committee (TIS) has selected the evolving ELF standard as a portable ob

  • Selling SCO short? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MixmastaKooz ( 621146 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:19AM (#9779758)
    With SCO's last defeat agaisnt Daimler-Chrysler and now this, who here has been short selling SCO's stock? Anybody willing to put their money where their mouth is?! ;) Do you think making money off of SCO's demise would be the ultimate revenge? (then give the profits to an open source fund, well, after you bought a new box and big screen). I wish I had some cash to do this (work for a non-profit), but it would be cool if people had some stories about selling SCO's stock short!

    • Re:Selling SCO short? (Score:3, Informative)

      by muon1183 ( 587316 )
      In case you haven't been paying attention to the replies to the posts suggesting this in other SCO threads, there isn't any stock available to be shorted, so nobody can short SCO (or at least of those people who wanted to short after SCO filed suit, nobody can).

      • Selling SCO short (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dr_Marvin_Monroe ( 550052 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:33AM (#9779909)
        If you look at the charts, it looks like MANY people have been covering their short positions. That's the only reason I can figure that the stock price INCREASES after the bad/good news on the DC suit.

        Looks to me like many of the shorts are now buying shares back to cover their short positions, and those swindlers at SCO are not really giving in to sell.

        I simply recommend staying away from SCOX, it's really tough to outmanuver the stock swindlers on a company such as this. The company insiders and all the people on the SCOX insider phone-tree have been pumping up the share prices, selling back and then re-purchasing to manipulate the price. Simply stay away from these guys.... There's better money to be made somewhere else, and it doesn't tarnish your karma or expose you to the risks found here.

    • I managed to short SCOX in the upper teens and got out around ten. Not bad. The problem has been for months being able to borrow the stock in the first place. Just try getting a couple thousand shares - no way unless you've got better contacts than I (this is my profession BTW). The short interest that already exists in SCOX has dried up the stock available for borrowing and even when it goes to zero you haven't made all that much.

    • Re:Selling SCO short? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) *

      it would be cool if people had some stories about selling SCO's stock short!

      I sold 400 SCOX shares short about the time it hit $10 per share, on the way up. I rode it all the way to the peak of over $20, and still hold my position now that it's below $5. I tried to short some more when it was high, but couldn't get any. It's taken over a year so far, but I'm ahead, and if I cashed out now it would even be a long-term gain.

      I intend to ride it into the ground, though.

  • Why SCO is a blessing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by diagnosis ( 38691 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:20AM (#9779769) Homepage
    Obviously this SCO stuff is a riot. And possibly a pain in the butt. But it does a couple of things:

    1. Gets Linux more press; this is good
    2. Proves that Linux has *serious* game, and can play with the big boys
    3. Shows legitimacy (see 2): publicly whooping SCO time and time again demonstrates the legimitacy of Linux and its IP.
    4. Entertains everyone: remember this? [lwn.net] Everyone loves watching things crash and burn...

    So, after all, what's not to love?
    ---------------------
    Dr. Movie Movie, PhD: DrMovieMovie.com [drmoviemovie.com]
    Witty movie reviews, eating contests, and a guy who once drank a gallon of milk in an hour.
    • 3. Shows legitimacy (see 2): publicly whooping SCO time and time again demonstrates the legimitacy of Linux and its IP.

      3a. It shows the power of the internet, and how farces like this can be exposed to the public.

      Groklaw does an awesome job of putting all this (dis)information together so we can all understand it. Without them, it would be hard to figure out what is going on. Without the internet, all you would hear about this stuff, if anything, would be what hits mainstream publications. I am ama

  • Just do what the Easter Bunny did -- hire Lobo deal with him.

    (For those who don't read comic books, see The Lobo Paramilitary Christmas Special [psu.edu]. The AFI even did a short film version [comics2film.com]

  • Anagrams for SCO (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Satans Computer Org.
  • I think all those naughty SCO investors will get coal in their stockings this year instead of dividends.

    In other news, Santa's elves will send Darl a summons for giving Santa cookies that contain portions made from recipes pilfered from the Keebler elves.

  • Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by MojoRilla ( 591502 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:26AM (#9779836)
    SCO says the ELF format was improperly released by the TISC.

    But SCO was on the TISC. And so was Novell. And the TISC released ELF before assets were sold.

    Plus, any format endorsed by the TISC is property of that committee. And anyone who joins the committee and donates standards must grant the TISC rights.

    Finally, the ELF format is an interchange format, and not copywritable.

    • Re:Summary (Score:3, Informative)

      by julesh ( 229690 )
      SCO says the ELF format was improperly released by the TISC.

      But SCO was on the TISC.

      That's SCO(Caldera) says the ELF format [...] But SCO(SCO) was on the TISC. Just for clarity's sake.

      • SCO(Caldera) says the ELF format [...] But SCO(SCO) was on the TISC

        Actually, that's the key point. SCO(SCO) didn't have the Unix rights. SCO(Caldera) claims to have done so. SCO(Caldera) argues that SCO(SCO) didn't have the rights to release ELF. If SCO(Caldera) is right about holding the Unix SysV copyrights, then TISC's license wasn't valid, and the subsequent purchase didn't make it so.

        As to the argument about header files, the author's simply wrong. The one case cited doesn't handle the question o

    • Below is from an earlier comment of mine.

      You are right in everything you say but it has no bearing since we are talking about a different company.

      It's like you you remove the graphics card of an Dell computer and sell it to SCO. Then SCO turns around and sues Dell for the missing card. At best they should sue you and would probably loose as they bougt "as is" The state of ELF was know or should have been known at the time Caldera sold to NewSCO.

      Quote:

      Current SCO is the third link in the chain. Whenev

  • "Santa Claus Organization" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:27AM (#9779838)
    Well, for one thing, even if SCO stood for "Santa Claus Organization", they could not claim Santa Claus, or even the North Pole, very easily, as this matter is already in dispute between several parties:

    1) The Danes, who claim to own the North Pole because the Lomonsov Ridge, which passes under the ice cap, is an extension of Greenland, which is part of the Danemark Kingdom. (Controversially, however, Santa (Jule manden) is already a Dane because he lives "in the capital of Greenland, Nuuk. So giving the North Pole to Greenland does not change his status, even if he has an extra factory there. He stays a Danish citizen.)

    2) The Russians, who claim to own the North Pole because the Lomonsov Ridge is an extension of Russia.

    3) The Turks, because St Nicholas, on whom Santa Claus is modelled, is buried on Gemiler, a tiny island off Turkey.

    Another issue is that the USA wants to divide the Arctic sea by sectors, as is the case with Antarctica, because the north coast of Alaska is the southernmost border of the Arctic ocean, so by sharing the Arctic in this way, the USA gets a larger share.

    Finally, on behalf of all my fellow Canadians, I claim Santa Claus, because he proudly wears the colors of our National Flag, and we own land up there too.

  • Where's the Progress? (Score:4, Funny)

    by l4m3z0r ( 799504 ) <<kevin> <at> <uberstyle.net>> on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:28AM (#9779853)
    We probably don't need to be reading what Groklaw says about it anymore now that we got the Daimler-Chrysler crap thrown out. Slashdot readers will be seeing more of that like soon enough, what with them most likely being thrown out of court rooms for the rest of summer and on into fall. Let's get on to the real reports like "SCO claims against IBM thrown out of court", "Judge rejects SCO vs Redhat arguments", and my favorite "Darl McBride beaten with gavel". Enough opinions, let's get on with watching them be summarily humiliated by old dudes in black robes.

    • "Let's get on to the real reports like "SCO claims against IBM thrown out of court", "Judge rejects SCO vs Redhat arguments", and my favorite "Darl McBride beaten with gavel".

      Frankly the favorite I'm holding out for is, "Darl McBride sodomized with gavel - the large side."

  • "Let the Santa Claus jokes commence" (Score:3, Funny)

    by nusratt ( 751548 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:32AM (#9779895) Journal
    "and SCO replied (with forked tounge)" [sic]

    actually, i'm more interested in hearing the "tounge" jokes
  • Let the "Santa Claus Organization" jokes commence."

    Darl McBride is a HO HO HO!
    *ducks*

  • Crazy Standards Ambiguity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NaugaHunter ( 639364 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:34AM (#9779922)
    "We have extended this traditional copyright doctrine to exclude from protection against infringement those elements of a work that necessarily result from external factors inherent in the subject matter of the work. For computer-related applications, these external factors include hardware standards and mechanical specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, industry programming practices, and practices and demands of the industry being serviced.See Gates Rubber, 9F.3d at 838; Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 709-10 (2d Cir. 1992); Plains Cotton Coop. Assoc. v. Goodpasture Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256, 1262 1635](5th Cir. 1987)

    If Word documents (or Office documents in general) an be argued to be 'standard', could this clause be used to protect code used to open them, regardless of how Microsoft changes them? This part appears a double edged sword, as the next question becomes who deigns something a 'standard'. Does common use qualify, or does it have to be recognized by some board or group?

    As I think about it, it may mean that the method of using published standards can't be copyrighted; but the 'published' part is implied. Perhaps the whole document defines 'standards' and 'specifications' more specifically (Groklaw only quoted part itself), but it seems like a possible angle to use in a non-intended manner.

    • Re:Crazy Standards Ambiguity (Score:4, Interesting)

      by julesh ( 229690 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @12:53PM (#9780850)
      If Word documents (or Office documents in general) an be argued to be 'standard', could this clause be used to protect code used to open them, regardless of how Microsoft changes them?

      I think so. It's not just talking about published and accredited standards -- it's talking about any kind of standard, even down to stuff that is simply "the practices [...] of the industry being served", which is exactly the kind of standard that MS Office documents are -- the industry involved being just about all of them.

      OTOH, it only relates to copyright, not patents. And wouldn't get you out of trouble from the "circumvention devices" aspect of the DMCA, which might apply to the DRM features in the latest Office versions, because in that case it isn't Microsoft's copyrights that are being infringed, but (they argue) their consumers.

  • coming down the pipe from IBM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:54AM (#9780104) Journal
    IBM doesn't seem content to beat SCO, they seem to want to *destroy* their linux case against anyone.

    That makes me think that there are things waiting in the wings with IBM. Looking Glass is cool, but I bet there are things much cooler from IBM that they're not disclosing until all this clears up. I bet IBM has some really good linux, and even OSS, products that will be coming out as soon as this goes away.

    I still wish IBM would just buy Sun. Sun has a lot of very valuable IP, but they're not mass-producing enough processors to be competitive. If IBM bought Sun they could get a lot of Sun's chip-to-chip stuff, their new smart threading cores, etc - and just put it on their own power chips. Then those could be used in Sun servers and IBM servers alike.

  • Wow.. The BayStar/SCO Fight just got uglier.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirFozzie ( 442268 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:57AM (#9780136)
    (Just saw this yahoo press release from SCO)

    LINDON, Utah, July 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) announced today that the SEC has declared effective, as of July 21, 2004, SCO's registration statement relating to the resale of shares of common stock issuable to BayStar Capital II, L.P. This fulfills the only condition to closing the repurchase transaction under the stock repurchase agreement between SCO and BayStar dated May 31, 2004, which was previously announced on June 1, 2004. Accordingly, SCO has informed BayStar that it considers the repurchase transaction to be closed as of July 21, 2004.

    BayStar has notified SCO that it is BayStar's position that the repurchase transaction has not closed, pending resolution of claims by BayStar that SCO's recent public statements regarding SCOsource licensing opportunities are inconsistent with statements previously made by SCO to representatives of BayStar. SCO takes such questions very seriously and reaffirms the accuracy of its public disclosures concerning its SCOsource business and confirms its belief that such disclosures are not inconsistent with any confidential statements previously made to BayStar. As SCO previously has cautioned in its public disclosures, it has limited experience with its SCOsource licensing initiative, and projecting SCOsource revenue is difficult and subject to numerous risks and uncertainties.

    BayStar has also claimed that it will not consider the repurchase transaction closed until SCO provides BayStar with confidential information supporting the accuracy of SCO's recent public disclosures regarding its SCOsource business. SCO has declined to provide the SCOsource information requested by BayStar in order to protect the confidential and proprietary nature of the information and the names of the companies engaged in SCOsource licensing discussions and to avoid fostering speculation regarding its SCOsource business.

    SCO believes that the stock repurchase agreement with BayStar is effective and binding, and observes that the issues raised by BayStar are neither conditions to closing nor the subject of any representations, warranties or other terms of that agreement. In connection with the closing, SCO has sent to BayStar a stock certificate representing 2,105,263 shares of SCO common stock and notified BayStar that is ready to deliver $13,000,000 in cash, constituting the balance of the repurchase consideration, upon receipt from BayStar of its wire transfer instructions.

    SCO has requested BayStar to fulfill its obligations under the stock repurchase agreement to deliver to SCO the certificates for the 40,000 shares of SCO Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock upon closing, and has informed BayStar that SCO will, in any case, consider all such Series A-1 stock cancelled and no longer issued and outstanding, effective as of the closing on July 21, 2004.
    • You know, at first I was surprised at this, but now I wonder why. SCO can't even keep their legal stories straight, how can we expect them to keep their public statements straight? I wonder how much impact this will have on the Baystar funding. If Baystar feels they're being taken for a ride, I'm willing to bet they'll pull their funding. If that happens, bye bye SCO.

    • Can anybody translate this SCO/Baystar stock market mumbojumbo into plain English? What's SCO trying to pull here?

      • Re:Wow.. The BayStar/SCO Fight just got uglier.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by SirFozzie ( 442268 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @12:34PM (#9780590)
        Basically, SCO want to hurry up and retire the A-1 stock (which gives BayStar a lot of say about how SCO runs the lawsuit and their business).

        The SEC signed off on the deal, and SCO says "Ok. Here's your money and shares. You're now a commoner just like the rest of our stockholders."

        Baystar: "I still have some questions about the SCOSource Licensing program... you're telling us one thing and doing another."

        SCO: "Not Listening! TAKE THE STOCK AND MONEY! LA! LA! LA! (fingers in ears)"

        Baystar: "Wait a second.. I have valid concerns, I haven't signed off on this yet.."

        SCO: "Yes you have! You just own a ton of our stock now. Go away! We don't like you anymore"

  • everyone is doing SCO's research for them... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by capsteve ( 4595 ) * on Friday July 23, 2004 @11:58AM (#9780162) Homepage Journal
    everytime SCO comes up with another hair-brained scheme to prove their position, it seems everyone in the community pitches in to prove them wrong. i'm not proposing this is a bad thing, but there may be some side effects of this process...

    imagine this scenario: SCO doesn't have the staff to research every possible technical angle. they probably have limited their ability to hire (competant)contractors to do the technical research either(would you work freelance for them?). so... they whip their existing tech staff to find other possible threads of "truth/proof" to prove their prior ownership claims.

    "don't worry if it isn't water-tight. we'll let IBM, groklaw, and the linux zealots figure it out for us. in the meantime, keep searching for possible angles no matter how slim. by the time they disprove one claim, we'll have another one waitng in the wings..."

    i don't want to give them too much credit for thinking this way, but as a community, those who would like to prove SCO wrong seem to be doing all the hard work, and at an exceptional pace. it's also something of a military tactic to keep your enemy busy with inconsequential skrimishs, tiring out the enemy troops prior to the big surprise attack.

    just my $.02

  • Legal Malpractice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@RABBIT ... minus herbivore> on Friday July 23, 2004 @12:04PM (#9780249) Homepage
    "The TIS Committee grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the information disclosed in this Specification to make your software TIS-compliant..."

    Pretty straightforward, isn't it?
    Should it be obvious to SCO's lawyers that the ELF infringement claim has no value? YES!
    Knowing this, should their rudimentary sense of ethics tell them NOT to help bring this suit? YES!!
    Should lawyers be held PERSONALLY responsible for participating in worthless suits like this that waste everybody else's time and money? HELL YES!!!
    • Uhh, dude: lawyers and ethics don't mix. I thought we all knew that.

    • Re:Legal Malpractice? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by yodaj007 ( 775974 )
      Long ago my planet solved its lawyer problem for good. At first we wanted to just fire all the lawyers, but that wasn't enough. So we changed our plans, and instead fired all the lawyers into the sun. After that, any new lawyer could represent a client, but if he did so and lost his case, he was consequently fired into the sun.
      After doing these things, the world economies boomed, birth rates shot up 150%, the average intelligence of my fellow Orks increased by 25%, and global warming became a non-issue
    • Um... no. Lawyers are supposed to be your direct representative. They're not _allowed_ to make judgements on whether they believe your actions are ethical or not. Once you've hired them, they're supposed to do whatever you want (as long as doing so is legal) without making any such judgments.

      That's one of the most fundamental points of a modern legal system. It just doesn't work if lawyers start making decisions like that... because sooner or later you'll get to the point where the lawyers won't touch
  • Of course there is nothing illegal about implementing a standard from scratch. But copying another person's implementation is indeed infringement. It's possible that a kernel developer was careless and thought "why should I go to the effort of writing an ELF implementation from scratch, when the UNIX implementation is pretty much in the public domain?"

    If they did that, it would be copyright infringement.

  • ELF isn't polite. (Score:3, Funny)

    by michael path ( 94586 ) * on Friday July 23, 2004 @12:34PM (#9780587) Homepage Journal
    The ELF name isn't politically correct any longer.

    Please use "Allocation Challenged File System" (ACFS).

    This was in the 2.6.4 changelog. Geez.

  • What's the motive? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bannerman ( 60282 ) <curdie@gmail.com> on Friday July 23, 2004 @12:35PM (#9780603)
    I'm still convinced that not everyone over at SCOG is mentally retarded. They've got some intelligent folks over there. All the same, it took a volunteer paralegal 24 hours to come up with overwhelming evidence against their latest claims. Certainly they could have at least come up with something more substantial, or in lieu of that, more vague.. to base their claims on.

    So what are they trying to pull? There's more involved here, and I think that it might be really important to understand what it is before they show their hand.

    • Re:What's the motive? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bhima ( 46039 ) <Bhima.Pandava@DE ... com minus distro> on Friday July 23, 2004 @01:06PM (#9781002) Journal
      Actually, you've hit on point that should have a lot of lawyer's attention: merit-less law suits which used take months of hard work in court rooms and lawyer's office's to uncover now takes an amazingly short time thanks to many volunteers. This means it is getting a little more dangerous to bring such things to the courts as your true motives are more likely to be exposed. And that's nothing but a good thing.

  • New lawsuit: BayStar vs SCO (?) (Score:3, Informative)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @02:05PM (#9781697) Homepage Journal

    SCO says [yahoo.com]:

    Accordingly, SCO has informed BayStar that it considers the repurchase transaction to be closed as of July 21, 2004.

    BayStar answers [yahoo.com]:

    BayStar intends to file an action requesting a declaratory judgment with respect to its rights under the Stock Repurchase Agreement. Until a final determination is made by the court, BayStar maintains its position as a Series A-1 Preferred stockholder of SCO.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close