The Register vs Groklaw: Who Gets It Right? 224
microbee writes "Over the past weeks Groklaw has been running a series of articles on new discoveries about SCO and Project Monterey. Surprisingly (to me, as I love both sites), The Register published another article to counter the argument of Groklaw's serials, claiming "it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition."" There's also a rebuttal on groklaw as well.
PJ's Rebuttal (Score:5, Informative)
Why not present both sides fully? PJ has already posted a rebuttal to this on Groklaw.
And for the record: Groklaw gets it right
PJ's Rebuttal [groklaw.net]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:5, Informative)
PJ seems only concerned, as I read her response, about whether PM was intended to run on the POWER architecture. I'm not sure how much the latter matters as much as the former.
You have the importance backwards. SCO's third amended complaint alleges that IBM's port of UNIX to POWER was not authorized by SCO. IOW, SCO is suing IBM for porting UNIX to POWER. Therefore, it is very important to prove that SCO did know, and approve, of IBM's efforts to port UNIX to POWER.
This is what PJ's spate of Monterey articles have primarily been about.
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:2, Interesting)
I also noticed that PJ didn't rebut that portion of the article. I think that the difference between the two may be in which SCO they're talking about. It appears that The Santa Cruz Operation (oldSCO) didn't know at the start that Project Monterey would be a stepping stone to Linux, but that Caldera (now The SCO Group, o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:2)
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:4, Interesting)
The company that used to be named "SCO" is now doing business under the name "Transmeta."
Caldera (aka: newSCO) bought the IP rights to the work done in Monterey from oldSCO (now Transmeta), and those rights are at the core of the present lawsuit.
So.. by showing that Caldera (now newSCO) knew Monterey was heading to POWER back before the Monterey project ended, PJ has produced evidence which directly contradicts the claims newSCO (then Caldera) has made in its third amended complaint.. namely that newSCO (then Caldera) thought:
Interestingly enough, the company formely known as "Caldera" didn't change its name to "The SCO Group" until after it filed its lawsuit against IBM. Questions like the one you just asked show just how much confusion that bit of misdirection has caused.
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:2, Informative)
Of course. The Register is nothing but a tech tabloid.
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:2)
Of course, you *could* actually go to Groklaw, and read the rebuttal (more of an article correcting some incorrect aspersions from the Reg article, really). The thread at Groklaw is about Linux on POWER, which is something that SCO is trying to say that they knew nothing about, in their third amended complaint.
Groklaw digging up things that say "SCO knew all about Linux on POWER" is on-point, a
Re:PJ's Rebuttal (Score:2, Interesting)
Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
I found it difficult to see the point of the Register article. There was very little in it that was actually inconsistent with what has appeared on Groklaw. The main theme seemed to be that Groklwas was wrong to think that it had made a big discovery about Project Monterey, but Groklaw has never claimed to have made such a discovery, just to have assembled lots of evidence that counters SCO's claims. The Register article's claims about PJ retracting statements are not backed up by any evidence.
As for Groklaw's alleged errors helping SCO, I don't see it. At worst, Groklaw has exaggerated the significance of the history of Project Monterey. SCO has made no hay out of this, and I don't see how it could, even if the Register's claims were true.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Informative)
Strange, since PJ concedes [groklaw.net] that she changed a statement after the article.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:2)
Now we'll wait (forever) for Andrew to retract his retraction claim...
My question is: why did Andrew make a big deal of this? It seems like an incredibly minor point one way or the other. PJ appears to have merely put together a hypothesis that one of SCO's claims was incorrect. Andrew appears to want to pounce on this as being some huge mistake on PJ's part.
Is this some "journalistic war" because the Register hasn't done (and can't do, given its nature) as good a job as Groklaw in covering the SCO cas
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:2, Insightful)
IIRC, RMS actually said, "I don't believe he's doing that," when answering some specific question about de Icaza's work, in the, "I think that's incorrect," sense. Orlokowski got it secondhand from someone who attended, misinterpreted the out-of-context quote, and chucked a story onto the Reg's front page before doing any journalistic stuff l
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:4, Insightful)
She does that all the time. That's why there is a "Corrections go here" post in every story.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this how we want things to work?
I don't hang out at Groklaw much, but in the few hours I've spent there I get the impression that PJ is very open to corrections, even soliciting them, and takes them to heart.
This is the side I'm likely to bet on. Nobody ever gets everything right, but the people who cling to their wrongs remain wrong, the people who admit their wrongs correct them and become "righter."
And then get critized for admiting they were wrong and retracting/correcting. On the other hand if you "correct" your view to a wrong one to gain popularity you are often cheered as a hero, and elected President. Is a puzzlement.
Henry Clay said, "I'd rather be right than President." I'll got with that, and PJ, not because she's infallible, but because she clearly, and publicly, knows that she isn't.
KFG
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:2)
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry but this is not a rebuttal of what I said. I said that the Register article's claims:
That remains true: the Register article doesn't specify what statements PJ retracted, with quotes and/or links. So even if the Register's claim were right, it is true that it gave no EVIDENCE for it, which is what I said.As to the correctness of the Register's claims, what PJ "admits" is that she made a small modification to ONE statement. Contrast that with the Register article's claim that:
As far as I can tell, NO phrases have "disappeared", and only one statement has been modified, in a rather minor way. This is hardly vindication for the Register article's overblown claims.You're missing the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is trying to put across the point that on single-sided sites such as Groklaw (and that's really what it is), context is lost completely.
Re:You're missing the point... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that TSCOG is a soft target.
Their public statements conflict with their court filings. Their earlier court filings contained grammatical as well as spelling errors. Their latest filings are pompous and repetitive. Their alleged evidence is so insubtantial as to be almost ludicrous. It's almost a textbook case of how not to conduct a lawsuit.
Re:Groklaw got it right (Score:2)
Exaggerated? Hardly.
Ransom Love himself, at the LinuxWorld 2000 convention, is RECORDED as saying that SCO was in the process of moving UNIX code to AI-32 and AI-64 Linux as quickly as possible. This was shortly AFTER Caldra acquired SCO. You can catch that comment at the 47 minute mark of his 50 minute speech at:
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_stream.html?stream_ id=393 [ddj.com]
and other places. I have the last 2 min an
Corrections go here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Corrections go here (Score:3, Funny)
My money is on The Register (Score:2, Insightful)
"The saga illustrates one of the perils of online forums, the "echo chamber" effect. Many participants join a forum to have beliefs re-affirmed, and context is often a casualty. It's also a characteristic of the "information age" that facts are often applauded regardless of whether they make sense in a particular context."
A brilliant explanation of how something becomes "fact" on the Internet. I wouldn't say The Register's article is really an indictment of Groklaw, but perhaps it woul
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:5, Insightful)
One of Groklaw's missions is to provide access to the available information so that the reader can form his own opinion. We feel we are quite successfull with that; even SCO uses our archive of legal documents. [slashdot.org]
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:5, Interesting)
...but it's the facts that are distorted by users (Score:2)
Re:...but it's the facts that are distorted by use (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of the Groklaw interest in Monterey was to gather information on SCO's claim that IBM broke their contract with SCO by developing Monterey on POWER. This was always the main focus for the fact gathering. Thus the majority of the statements and "revelations" made were regarding this position taken by SCO. That Monterey on POWER isn't much of a revelation for Orlowski is not really surprising given the mountain of "evidence" gathered by
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, perhaps we should stop reporting on what goes on in the courts, and even better corporate boardrooms. Why bother, what could the public possibly gain from a though scrutiny of these public entities? The courts can decide for themselves what is right and wrong with out the help of Groklaw. I would really hate for the data that has been compiled on Groklaw to get into the wrong layers hands, it could thorw the whole case off for SCO. How dare PJ attempt to refute each and every accusation put forth by SCO. I mean SCO would _never_ use the media like this, would they?
How about blinders for the public too, no need for all these messy details to make it outside of the court room. We simple folk cannot possibly comprehend the subtiles of SCO trying to bludgeon linux by suing IBM, we should just quietly wait while the fate of open and free software is tested in the courts.
Gimme a break...
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:2)
Only that the Truth often gets lost when the Facts are repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about (forum posters, not the Groklaw folks).
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Why shouldn't facts be repeated? How is truth affected by the facts? Why the capitalization? It sounds like you're being an apologist for the prevalence of spin applied to meaning, so I'm curious about what you're trying to say.
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:2)
Again, I'm not accusing Groklaw of doing either, intentionally or not, but that certainly isn't beneath forum posters with an agenda.
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:2)
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither do I think you are correct attempting to tie "facts" as the reg puts it as an indictment to Groklaw. Again please show me one link of PJ's that are not facts or a matter of public record.
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:2)
Re:My money is on The Register (Score:2)
I can't believe you'd side with the Register on the grounds of "bias". I read the Register because their bias + their sense of humor = excellent reading, facts notwithstanding.
Register seems to be missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the big problem the register has is PJ's summary of how Monterey was a "stopgap" on IBM's way to Linux.
That seems to be much ado about nothing (then we ARE talking about the register
Whether Monterey was a "stopgap" or not doesn't matter to the case, but rather whether SCO was aware of IBM's intent to run the code on the power PC. THAT is why the "evidence" that has been recorded on Groklaw is important.
Echo chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Echo chamber (Score:2, Informative)
It takes time to research an assertion like this, and only recently have people been able to dig up and post documents relating to the above assertion by SCO.
The problem seems to be that where GORKLAW readers were fully awa
Re:Echo chamber (Score:2)
As I remeber it at the time Monteray was more about porting large chunks of AIX to run on Intels Titantic 64 bit processor. SCOs contibution was to be its expertese on the Intel hardware specifics.
IBM has had unix running on various power architectures since the Power instruction set existed, and, was up to AIX release 4.1.. when project Monteray was announced so its difficult to see what SCO could be complaining about.
Incidently back in 1998 Linux was still vieed as a hobbyist OS and no threat to AIX,
Re:Echo chamber (Score:2)
There is this site called groklaw. It contains lots of evidence. I suggest you check it out.
Re:Echo chamber (Score:2)
Why not? GrokLaw was a good enough source for SCO to get their legal materials from (pdfs, etc) to construct their own pro-sco site. http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/33351/ [lxer.com]
SCO Uses Legal Documents from Groklaw and Tuxrocks
Re:Echo chamber (Score:2)
Time and time and time again statement made by SCO to the press were proven false. Time and time and time again statements made in SCO's fillings were proven false. Time and time and time again statments made by Linux supporters have found more and more evidence. At what point do you simply stop giving SCO the
Summary / PJ's response (Score:4, Interesting)
Summary: the Register saw a flaw in some groklaw articles (about the 'stopgap' claims), wrongly interpreted some other comments (proof that SCO knew about Monterey on Power) in that context, and wrote a very long article about it. PJ's response, unfortunately, only goes into those last claims, not the critique on the stopgap claims, which are justified, IMHO.
Anyway, storm is a glass of water.
Jan
More PJ response (Score:2, Informative)
Look further down in the comments section of that article by PJ. She points out that she did make a minor adjustment in her phrasing of the stopgap phrase in order to be clearer about what she meant. Orlowski misinterpreted her intention, and she promises to try to be clearer in the future.
Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is difficult to envisage this, since Groklaw isn't about trying to sway any court case. The lawyers for IBM and SCOX are the ones to make that kind of impact, and they have to rely on whatever are the facts. Groklaw is merely reporting the various twists and turns of this case, and in this process it is helping the lawyers and the technical people understand what the other say and how they think. As far as any conjecture being presented there, this appears mostly based on available material, such as court filings and technical documentation generally available. There may seem to be a bias against SCO, but if the realities of the case had been different, there could just as well have been an apparent bias against IBM.
As for being valuable to SCO PR, I'd beg to differ! Groklaw has been able to neutralize much of the FUD that Darl McBride would have us believe about SCO owning and controlling this and that... if anything can be compared to ammunition, it would be the torpedoes that are about to sink SCO. Even without Groklaw, SCO would eventually have foundered, it would have taken longer, and resulted in a slower growth of Linux.
Re:Conjecture, sure. Valuable to SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Andrew Orlowski (Score:5, Insightful)
I've stopped reading El Reg because they don't have a block Andrew Orlowski option. I could tell within a sentence (without reading the byline) that an article was by Andrew.
Previously his articles have dripped with vitriolic envy of Google. I'm guessing that the new ones have the same acidic content agains Groklaw. While I've doubts about the objectivity (ho ho) of Groklaw, life is too short to read Andrew's rantings on the subject.
Re:Andrew Orlowski (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no absolute requirement of objectivity in order to recognize facts. It can help, but it's not a requirement.
Re:Andrew Orlowski (Score:2)
Personally I find Groklaw's very obviously partisan commentary on the facts to be unhelpful. I particularly dislike it when they stray away from the SCO discussion onto other subjects where their real strength (the presentation of raw evidence) is not exhibited, or less so.
Re:Andrew Orlowski (Score:2)
What is a serials? (Score:2)
PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks PJ for the most polite but devastating putdown I have seen in years :)
PJ: "I see I should have explained all that more clearly, and I'll surely be more alert in the future,
to make sure those with no legal background or training can follow along."
Re:PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (Score:2)
This is exactly the same as if I were explaining something about computers to a non-computer person without giving them the necessary background. The failure is then mine, not theirs. PJ under
Re:PJ's polite but devastating putdown - ouch! (Score:3, Informative)
was the subject of her stories. The reason it is the
subject of her stories is due to SCO's proposed 4th
amended complaint, which seeks to argue that IBM
released AIX on Power without their permission.
Of course, you can be forgiven for thinking this is
peripheral, because Orlofsky's story doesn't mention
it at all. Like PJ, I'm not at all clear what he
thinks he's rebutting in his rebuttal.
However, I agree that it isn't a very good putdown.
Hardly a putdown at a
The only way to the truth is via open discussion (Score:4, Interesting)
So, thanks for the article, guys. As others have pointed out, P.J. has already put up a response, with her usual discussion forum there.
Being open about things requires getting at the truth. And I think people generally agree that the real truth, presented in Court, will make Linux stronger, not weaker.
I also note this falsehood in the Register article:
"SCO made friendly with Linux as best it could,"
Pure, utter bull. SCO was never, ever a nice company. They pulled EVERY dirty trick in the book that they could. This case is, in fact, the SECOND time they have partnered with Microsoft to bring down a UNIX competitor via the Courts. The first time was a legal threat to a small company called Microport, when Microport publically announced Xenix binary compatibility in stock AT&T UNIX.
Microport, by the way, was the company which provided Richard Stallman's foks with a complete development system for free, just so that he could put gcc on the 386.
Also, there was a quote from Doug Michaels (head of SCO at the time) stating in an interview that SCO would "steal everything it could" from Linux. Michaels later retracted that statement; but it was clear that his original words were what SCO had on its mind.
So noo, SCO never, ever made friendly with Linux. It was always trying to stab Linux in the back at every opportunity it could. To state otherwise is an outright lie, and is to the Registers' general discredit.
Groklaw is NOT an open forum... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the implication there is that Groklaw is an open forum.
Except it's not.
It's a heavily biased forum - I don't think anyone would try to refute the claim that the majority of Groklaw contributers are anti-SCO. A court is, in theory, unbiased. The judge should weigh the case up on a fact by fact, argument by argument basis.
Groklaw doesn't quite work li
Re:Groklaw IS an open forum... (Score:3, Insightful)
Groklaw is an open forum, because anyone is free to post there. If it were a closed forum, only a certain select few individuals would be allowed to post there.
The "open-ness" of a forum has nothing to do with the general opinions of its members, and whether or not they agree or disagree with your opinions.
A similar analogy is open source software vs. closed-source software:
1. Open source: anyone can see the source code
2. Closed source: only those with
Re:Groklaw is NOT an open forum... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, please.
Since when does "open forum" = "unbiased forum"?
In point of fact, I'd have to say that pretty much ALL of the groklaw contributors (by which I mean articles, rather than comments) are pretty much "anti-SCO", but this doesn't mean that the site isn't open.
Last time I checked the T&C you didn't have to promise faithfully to switch your brain off and follow the party line to comment over at Groklaw. Nor does PJ go through every comment ensuring that the purity of the site's Anti-SCO bias is
Re:Groklaw is NOT an open forum... (Score:2)
Psst, over here, yeah you, don't tell anyone but did you know that Slashdot is inhabited by a bunch of Techno-Geeks, no really, mostly Linux users, quite a few rabid ones. Think maybe I should have this p
Re:The only way to the truth is via open discussio (Score:3, Informative)
The SCO that threatened Microport is not the SCO that is suing IBM.
Santa Cruz Operation != The SCO Group.
This SCO is Caldera. Caldera who used to sell Linux. Remember them?
Got it?
Wrong SCO (Score:5, Informative)
In 1979, Larry and Doug Michels founded The Santa Cruz Operation ("oldSCO"). Santa Cruz was then partly held by Microsoft. They ported UNIX to the 8086, releasing Xenix-86 in 1983, followed by releases for the '286 and '386 chips. (Both Santa Cruz and Microsoft sold Xenix at various times.)
In 1994, Caldera was founded as a Linux distributor by Ransom Love and Bryan Sparks, financed and guided by Novell founder Ray Noorda.
In 1995, Santa Cruz bought Xenix from Microsoft and UNIX/UnixWare from Novell.
In 1996, Caldera bought DR-DOS from Novell, and promptly sued Microsoft over antitrust.
In 1998, Project Monterey was announced between IBM, Sequent, and Santa Cruz.
In 1999, Microsoft sold off all it's Santa Cruz shares.
In 2000 (January), Microsoft settled the DR DOS case with Caldera for between $60 and $150 million. In March of that year, Caldera Systems reincorporated in Delaware, receiving a $30 million investment from Sun, Santa Cruz, Citrix, Novell and venture capitalists and made an IPO. Ray Noorda then owned 73% of Caldera Systems. In a deal announced in August of 2000 and completed in the Spring of 2001, Caldera bought the server and OS part of oldSCO. OldSCO then changed its name to Tarentella, which (in 2005) sells a nice directory for Unix. At some point after the UNIX purchase, apparently, Ray Noorda stopped giving much guidance to Caldera.
It was widely believed, that Caldera's purchase of Santa Cruz' UNIX group would mean the end of Monterey. Certainly it gave IBM an out, since their Monterey contract specified that a change in control could end the agreement.
In January 2003 IBM made some public statements implying that they were using their AIX knowledge to advance Linux.
In March of 2003, Caldera sued IBM for copyright infringement, I mean trade secret violations, I mean "this has always been a contract case". In July, Caldera changed its name to "The SCO Group".
As far as I know, none of the people calling the shots at The SCO Group (Caldera) have anything to do with The Santa Cruz Operation.
Re:Wrong SCO (Score:2)
He knew very well what he was saying at the time, his subsequent (and rather panicked) denials notwithstanding.
I never understood the fascination with the Reg... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an example of their crapola: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/torvalds_
Can you imagine a newspaper printing, "Here's a quote from president Bush. Haha... just kidding!" I have a sense of humor, but there are times when stuff like that is appropriate and times when it's not. It's like an entire site of editorials and wannabe pundits.
Re:I never understood the fascination with the Reg (Score:2, Insightful)
It was saying that Linus' attacks on Tridge might-as-well-have-been attacks on OpenOffice, or other compatibility based projects.
~Dave
"difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what Groklaw is doing. Groklaw makes as many court documents as possible public. Convincing a court of anything is the lawyers' job. What Groklaw is doing here is clarifying arguments already made by IBM's legal team.
What Groklaw does is fight FUD. It has done a very good job of fighting FUD. The result is (imho) that the mainstream press has figured out the truth much sooner that it would otherwise have done.
Is this the same Register .. (Score:3)
I emailed them on a couple of occasions to advise them of factual innacuracies in their stories, only to be ignored.
On one occasion when discussing a new database used by casinos in Vegas, they stated that blackjack players, who are card counters, were cheats and criminals who could be arrested.
Card counting is perfectly legal in Nevada, even if casinos dont like counters, and the Register could have checked that and then corrected it, but chose not to.
So I choose not to read their often inaccurate garbage anymore.
They publish a tariff (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this being el Reg, I'm never entirely sure whether or not to take said tariff with a pinch of salt. Overall, I think I'm tending toward not.
It doesn't diminish my my affection for the rag, I just don't take them too seriously when they pull sudden a volte-face in favour of someone with deep pockets.
Re:They publish a tariff (Score:2)
It's funny. Laugh. (Learn to spot a joke...) (Score:2)
"For £15,000 we will write any story you like on our site": do you think that any publisher as vitriolic as The Register would really really sell their soul so cheaply? Or that they would leave themselves that open to possible libel action by writing "any story you like"?
The Register constantly ridicules the major shakers and movers in the IT industry. That page that you've linked to is it ridiculing those who cover the industry too.
Re:It's funny. Laugh. (Learn to spot a joke...) (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm having dificulty deciding in this case. I'm fairly certain I said that up front. It is funny. I did laugh. That does not mean that the reg is not at the same time deadly serious.
This is a trick question, right? The tariff gag works just because of El Reg's posture of postmodern amorality. The question is whether (and to what exten
Maybe it is just me but... (Score:3, Insightful)
"it's difficult to envisage Groklaw's conjecture swaying a court case, but it provides SCO with valuable public relations ammunition.""
I really want news services to inform me about what is going on in a court case not have any real effect on a court case. In theory anyway court cases should not be effected by public opinion or news coverage.
the Register article is mush (Score:3, Insightful)
Perspective Vortex (Score:2)
Mr. Orlowski glosses over or ignores to many things for his piece to be taken as anything but a clickity magnet.
Case in point... (Score:4, Insightful)
As Orlowski says, "commenters who pointed out the shortcomings of the argument were lost in the Groklaw noise [...] They're lost amidst comments such as "Absolutely fascinating", and "Doesn't this just about blow the whole of SCOG's case out of the water?"
The same is perfectly true here - I'm sure there are far more of the latter on Slashdot, and being a "democratic" mod system the latter wield the greater "power".
Thus, those who post comments such as "This article is wrong", "Groklaw is right", "PJ is right" etc. etc. will in general be moderated far higher than those posting "...perhaps Andrew Orlowski has a point".
Now, the big question is whether that's a bad thing. The point of the Slashdot mod system is that only after repeated moderation by severak different people does a comment become noticed. The system is, in it's own idiosyncratic way, a democracy. But as a result of this, some opinions that may actually have some merit but are disagreed with by the majority are left behind.
The echo chamber exists right here - when this article was at around 75 comments posted, I'd say I saw many more pro-Groklaw posts modded up to 5 than criticisms...there were critical posts there, but they had yet to be moderated up.
Note That... (Score:3)
...the author of the Register article says he bases his account on "first hand experience," including attendance at 4 SCO Forums.
Certainly the SCO representatives at these forums would not have hesitated to be completely open and honest with customers, investors and media - if SCO's announced strategy for the future (Project Monterey) was a mere stopgap until Linux became dominant, I'm sure they would have come right out and said so.
Ahem.
Does the word "law" appear in www.theregister.com? (Score:4, Interesting)
And they disagree on a point of US law?
On the face of it, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Ms. Jones.
Re:Does the word "law" appear in www.theregister.c (Score:2)
It's Orlowski (Score:2, Insightful)
My favorite quote from the Register article: (Score:2)
Now, if they'd said something to the effect of "More facts THAT don't make a better argument" or "More fact's don't NECESSARILY make a better argument" it would have made sense. As it is, the article reads as though the author was just scribbling something down.
Spellchecker does not an editor make.
Loaded question encountered on job interview (Score:3, Interesting)
I will never know how much that contributed to their opinion of me.
Orlowski strikes again (Score:2)
I click-through, and behold, I am correct.
Andrew Orlowski is either incapable of reading or deliberately inflammatory to boost page views. I have never seen an article from him that was factually accurate, and the subsequent conclusions are exactly what you'd expect.
People, when you see that name, think John Dvorak or Katz, not respectable journalist; at t
Re:Give up and Die, SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess they hope it's a case of any publicity is good publicity
Re:Give up and Die, SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been left in the dust by Linux and they're really not relevent anymore. If anything, they're the posterchild for why you should abandon propriatary OSs. I hope Bill Gate$ is paying attention.
Re:Give up and Die, SCO (Score:2)
Actually, they have been mostly smart (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually, they have been mostly smart (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are other lawyers working behind the scenes, but the major work is being handled by the firms of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, and Snell & Wilmer LLP, plus IBM in-house legal staff, and likely hundreds of paralegals.
And they are all deserving of their compensation in this mess.
Re:El Reg == crap (Score:2)
Re:Psst. (Score:2, Funny)
Is that pronounced "fan-BWAH"?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2, Interesting)
Where id PJ say that?
I quote below the second paragraph of the groklaw article:
Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long admired. However, in this case, he didn't understand why legally the evidence Groklaw found of Project Monterey being intended from the beginning to be used on POWER matters. It matters because SCO's proposed 3rd amended complaint apparently is claiming that IBM had no right to use the Project Monterey product on POWER an
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2)
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2)
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2)
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2)
The article seems to lack focus ... and this, intentionally. I've read it a few times, and I think I'd make a better argument after a half-dozen beers.
All in all, very strange ...
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2)
The knee-jerk reaction to any post that might contradict the conventional wisdom is to scream that the poster is an M$ astroturfer, whether or not that accusation is well founded.
Re:The article was more M$ trolling (Score:2)
Consider this: