Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
McBride has lost his mind - nothing from this day forward can even begin to be
considered rational!
The proof of his mental condition is in the rational of his pudding riddled mind
as evidenced in the following article:
http://www.nwfusion.co
m/news/2003/0825scoatta.html
Ya gotta read the posted responses all over the place to this one... classic
from NewsForge reader:
"Desparate excuses....
by Anonymous Reader on 2003.08.22 11:20 (#66062)
::booming voice from bullhorn::
"Step away from the crack pipe" annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
HOWL!
annon, nice quote. =) MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
A repeat of 2001 when Microsoft and Craig Monday outright attacked the Open
Source and GPL.
The reply will be the same.
FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND TOGETHER
http://www.perens.com/A
rticles/StandTogether.html
SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source
http://www.siia.
net/sharedcontent/press/2001/5-3-01.html
And the fight and same arguments will be refuted
Why Linux will conquer the world
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.New
s.Talkback/zdnn/tb.tpt/@thread@113878@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@113878?EXP=ALL
E113873E113859E114006E113839&VWM=hr&ROS=&PAGETP=2100&NODEID=1104&SHOST=zdnet.com
.com
Here is my refuting where Ardian gets a pasting
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.New
s.Talkback/zdnn/tb.tpt/@thread@114569@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@114569?EXP=ALL
E113873E113859E114006E113839&VWM=hr&ROS=&PAGETP=2100&NODEID=1104&SHOST=zdnet.com
.com David Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
Personally, I want to see McBride/Sontag remains sane enough to get through the
trial so that he can face the music and enjoy his days as Bubba's McBribes.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
David, if you are going to post such long links, break them with returns
yourself as you are destroying the software word wrap. No one can read the
damn comments without dragging the damn scroll bar back and forth for every
damn line! That goes for ALL you well-meaning but misguided readers who
post such long links!! J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
www.tinyurl.com is your friend. For example, I took that forums.com long link,
ran it through Tiny URL, and came up with this:
http://tinyurl.com/kv76
Ain't that better? Just a tip for future postings. Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
www.tinyurl.com is your friend. For example, I took that forums.com long link,
ran it through Tiny URL, and came up with this:
http://tinyurl.com/kv76
Ain't that better? Just a tip for future postings. Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
I know this is a bit off topic but, Eric Raymond
does
a thoughtful analysis of the "smoking gun SCO Code" with liks to other
analysis by Perens and Lehey's articles. It is well worth the read. PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
The silent majority have now spoken. The Silent Majority[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
Sontag and McBride interviewed in German, Bablefish translation:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise
.
de%2Fct%2Faktuell%2Fmeldung%2F39599&lp=de_en&tt=url
(left it long so someone could trace it back to the German and do some human
translation) david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
Of course! It all makes sense now. They've been working on an insanity defense
for when the SEC or other agencies come after them for stock manipulation,
fraud, extortion, racketeering, or any other applicable laws that might put them
in a cell with Bubba! :)
Great work here PJ and everyone. I read it daily. izzyb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
Also, minimal HTML coding lesson: You can shorten URLs without using tinyurl by
hand-coding the HTML hyperlink.
To do so, type your URL like this:
<A HREF=" REALLY LONG URL GOES HERE ">click here</A>
You'll get a result that looks like this:
click here Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Paul: Good tip! Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
Not a kernel hacker, not a lawyer. I just wanted to do something to feel
useful. :) Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Most of what I am mentioning is here:
http://www.wired.
com/news/business/0,1367,58904,00.html
Brad Smith is a Microsoft Vice President, and their General Counsel (a lawyer).
He worked out the licensing deal with SCOX. While earning that six-figure plus
salary he must have learned:
1. That the Open Group owns the trademarks "Unix" and "Unixware".
2. That Novell and Tarentella kept the revenue streams from their patents
according to their own SEC filings.
3. That SCOX didn't have any Unix copyrights registered with the US government
(at that time).
4. That BSD and the ancient Unix sources could be used under four-point BSD or
BSD-style licenses.
Despite all of that, and his fiduciary obligations, he paid millions of dollars
in licensing fees to SCOX, and they accepted it. Why?
In a statement, Microsoft said the Unix license was intended to ensure that the
software maker did not violate any intellectual property rights when developing
products that allow computers with differing operating systems to work in tandem
with one another. "This helps to ensure IP (intellectual property) compliance
across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products,
like Services For Unix that further Unix interoperability," Brad Smith,
Microsoft general counsel and senior vice president, said in a statement.
Microsoft's announcement comes as SCO last week turned up the heat on its
intellectual property battle by notifying 1,500 of the world's largest
corporations that their use of Linux may be in violation of SCO's software
rights.
What SCOX IP claims could have possibly existed at that time in Services For
Unix if not the GPL'd GNU code
mentioned in the right margin on this page? http://www.micr
osoft.com/windows/sfu/howtobuy/default.asp
Microsoft doesn't distribute the Linux kernel, so Microsoft and SCOX can't have
had that in mind. In an
email interview Chris Sontag said: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that
Linus and others have helped
develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel.
http://mozillaq
uest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story01.html
People who don't want to admit that SCOX has already made millions -in part -
from licensing claims on GNU software are free to believe whatever they want. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Dissmisal.
By my reading of the scheduling order (document 23 at http://www.utd.uscour
ts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html) IBM has until 10 Nov to file a motion to
dismiss. If they intend to do this is there any reason why they would delay it
as long as possible? Would they be able to dismiss the SCO case without having
to thyen refile their counter claims as a separate case.
Does anyone know how long SCO have got to respond to IBMs counter claims? And
when they have to file their 10Q - the last one was filed on 13 Jun so I guess
they've got at least until 13 sep even though apparently it is traditional to
file them straight at the same time as the earnings call Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Paul, how did you get this app to accept the text of the sample w/o causing it
to
show up as an underlined link? phil PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Minor Correction:
It's Dee Ann LeBlanc. Patricio Aguilera[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
Sorry... I meant Dee-Ann (I forgot the hyphen). Patricio Aguilera[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
I will never understand the stock market. How is it that SCOX
stock is up
over a buck so far today?
Have I missed something? The only press I've seen has been SCO whining about
how IBM is picking on them. Links from a story on slashdot.
You can't tell me that is what spawned a buy on the stock? izzyb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
IBM may be just biding their time. One thing I have noticed is that SCO is
getting more and more desperate sounding in their claims and FUD. IBM may just
be waiting and listening to all this crap, which will be put in the motion to
dismiss. If SCO can't keep their story straight (notice how it's changed alot
recently), IBM can just say "These people are idiots" and file the motion. If
they have more examples of SCO idiocy it makes it easier to get a judge to
dismiss.
Somebody on Slashdot got it right yesterday... It may be spelled S-C-O but it's
pronounced "ass hats" K.
Gardner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
This seems less of an issue for a (para)legal every day - SCOX have not actually
done anything legal sounding for a number of days. I too am at a loss as to what
motivates the stock market in this case... the market reacted well to the
gun-to-foot code revelations and seems to be lapping up McBribe's anti-GPL
nonsense. Salim Fadhley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
Eric Raymond just posted an open letter to Darl McBride on NewsForge. He makes
the following statement:
"As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against
predators and carpetbaggers is mine — and if you don't stop trying to destroy
Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our
alliance is cooking up next."
What is the chance that he has consensus of key developers to bring a GNU GPL
violation case against SCO on their Unix offering? What is involved in getting
say Samba, the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection to attempt getting a
temporary injuction to stop SCO from selling its new Unix version with their
software? They could gut SCO's product line and advertised features by doing
this. Is his letter just brinksmanship or is something nasty like a temporary
injunction really possible? Anthony Awtrey[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
I just Love Eric Raymond's open letter today:
http://newsf
orge.com/newsforge/03/08/22/1746248.shtml?tid=19
It contains this legal threat:
"........ You have a choice. Peel off that dark helmet and deal with us like a
reasonable human being, or continue down a path that could be bad trouble for us
but will be utter ruin — quite possibly including jail time on fraud,
intellectual-property theft, barratry, and stock-manipulation charges — for you
and the rest of SCO's top management. You have my email, you can have my phone
if you want it, and you have my word of honor that you'll get a fair hearing for
any truths you have to offer." tamarian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
Salim: don't get too worked up about the stock market. The numbers of SCO-scum's
shares that are traded is around 150,000 at $10 apiece or $1.5 mil worth of
shares. It is very easy for a single large speculator to corner the market on
these shares, and we appear to have at least one such candidate in the person of
Cohen from JHC Capital. Cohen is gambling that SCO-scum will win something
substantial from IBM. He probably figures that if SCO-scum loses, $1.5 mil of
course goes down the drain but $1.5 mil is just pocket change to the mutual fund
he runs. Neither you nor I nor anyone has any influence on the actions of the
likes of Cohen, and it is a useless waste of time and energy to worry about
things that neither you nor I nor anyone in his por her right mind have no
control or influence over. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
Paul, thank you.
I know about the Dee-Ann typo, and I've tried to correct it several times, but
the software isn't helping today. Eventually, it should show up correctly.
Thanks for noticing though.
I've written to a lawyer who does German English translations, but if anyone
wishes to step up to the plate, pls. do. Especially the last five or six
paragraphs of McBride's section of the interview. Thanks. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
Eric Raymond rules. Some joyously ferocious remarks in his reply to Darl "Crazy"
McBride. Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
Oh, one thing on the HTML lesson: remove the spaces after and before the
quotation marks in Paul's example, so it's here pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
I thought Raymond's letter was too emotional. He should have stuck to factual
and legal matters, and pointed out he's not working for IBM :-)
I sincerely doubt Microsoft would use their patent portfolio against Linux. They
must know that would mean they'd also be taking on IBM - and according to at
least one book, IBM have wielded their humongous patent portfolio in Gates'
direction before. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
Jesus, did Eric Raymond seriously write that? I'm sorry, but he's acting like
SCO. Inflammatory rhetoric, vague threats about possible legal
consequences.
Someone buy him a beer or something. :)
Although if he and his allies really are "cooking up" some legal action,
how do I get in on that as a Linux end-user? Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Harlan, thank you for the reminder on that Wired article from May. I note it
reimforces my theory that the plan is UNIX interoperating with Linux apps and
Windows:
"In a statement, Microsoft said the Unix license was intended to ensure that the
software maker did not violate any intellectual property rights when developing
products that allow computers with differing operating systems to work in tandem
with one another.
"This helps to ensure IP (intellectual property) compliance across Microsoft
solutions and supports our efforts around existing products, like services for
Unix that further Unix interoperability," Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel
and senior vice president, said in a statement. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
PJ, there's a translation-by-hand of the German SCO interview on slashdot.
PhilTR, if you use < instead of the less than sign, then HTML will
translate it into a less-than sign onscreen. Do a google search for "HTML
entities" for more information. Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Paul and quatermass: Did you read McBride's latest
nutball statements? I think Raymond's reply was not
only proper but humorously biting.
As for the veiled legal threat, I have no doubt the OSI
and FSF are planning a two-pronged counter-attack against
SCO and it would be righteously deserved considering SCO's
deplorable, unethical, thieving, smarmy scumbucket actions. Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
from the slashot translation:
"c't: Why then are you demonstrating exactly this code publicly as evidence? You
are sueing IBM.
Sontag: We found several kinds of breaches of copyright and of contracts.
Literal copying of code was the most obvious kind, and we wanted to prove this
as well. Therefore, we have shown it in the public talk, and demonstrate the
example also unter terms of an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found
such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not examined everything yet. With
IBM, this is above all about a different kind of breach of contract, namely the
transfer of derived results on a very large scale. The licensing agreement
provides that all changes and derived products remain within the originally
licensed body of work.
So, they found, to this day, zero evidence of IBM verbatim of copying.
Therefore, the talk of lawsuit with IBM is back on the breach of contract.
Quite a dance! Don't you think! But they are doing a Texas 2-step to a Salsa
beat. Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Thanks Paul. I also did a "view page source" and, voila! there it was! PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
I have a theory about the stock rising: Think about the kind of people who
invest in stock (an overgeneralization is now coming). They belief in profit,
and speculating on which companies will make a profit. In particular, those who
are still investing in the tech sector, despite historically out-of-whack PE
ratios (yes, even after the downturn), are really gambling with their money.
That is a mindset that respects profit and greed. McBride is their poster
child. They want to believe. They want to score as big as McBride is hoping
for. They clearly have not done their due diligence on the company, so they
might well believe the FUD coming from SCO.
So you have a group of investors keyed to thinking in terms of greed, hearing a
message of greed from a CEO, seeing a message of greed from an analyst, and
without having dug too deep into the veracity of those claims. It's not
surprising to see them speculate on SCO as a gamble. The stock is still fairly
cheap, so hey, let's throw a few bucks down and maybe we'll hit the jackpot.
Groklaw readers are among the most well-informed folks about SCO. Even on
Slashdot there are many misconceptions and fears (along with the blind bravado).
Imagine the average investor and how little he or she knows about these facts.
And remember how many people threw money at the sinking ship of the dot com era.
SCO stock going up with each new interview and press release is not a surprise
considering the mindset of the average investor. And yes, I know this is an
overgeneralization, and there also exist sharp, informed, reasonable investors.
You can easily tell them apart -- they are the ones investing in IBM at the
moment... ;) Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
Holly pot calling the kettle black! Did he really say this? Please tell me
this is a error in translating!
c't: You are acting fairly belligerent on this forum. You declared war against
open source, since it becomes destructive for the software industry. Does the
whole movement have to die so that a few software companies can live well?
McBride: Actually, that was more aimed at the GPL, not open source as a whole.
There's a lot of very valuable effort in open source. But the extreme
interpretation that nobody himself owns anything that he developed himself, that
can't remain like this. With this, created value gets destroyed. The GPL must
change or it will not survive in the long run. I have discussed with many
exponents of the open source side about this already.
So the GPL takes away ownership of anything you write yourself. PJ, are you
still offering GPL 101 courses? McBride needs a refresher!
Unlike the claims SCO is making about the far reaching effects of the UNIX
license (they own / control all derivative works to anything that even
touched UNIX), the GPL doesn't provent the rightful copyright holder from taking
their own code and doing anything else they wish with it.
Man, someone should start selling t-shirts or something with some of these
quotes on them. This shit is funny! ;) izzyb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Yes, Nick, that is an overgeneralization. You are describing speculators, there
are also fundamentalists (who base their investment decisions on company
fundamentals) and technical analysists (who try to read the market's "body
language" and anticipate its moves). The market hasn't hammered sense into all
of the speculators yet. It will. Larry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
From the translation on slashdot
McBride: ... That's completely wrong. We posess all files of this code with the
complete source tree (lit: pedigree) in all version, up to the origin in
1969
In Dennis Ritchie's description of the nsys code (earliest traced version on the
internet) he said that the tape was labelled Nov 73 and that that date must be
about right as the struct keyword used in this code wasn't added to C until mid
73 - the code would look radically different without it. I'd love to see the
code that McBride has got that is 4 years older than the language syntax it
uses.
McBride: "The code in question dates from exactly the version of Unix System V
which we have delivered to SGI and licenced with a signed contract"
Strange then that it contains the Linux specific spinlock and not the Unix lock
that is in the SVR4 version. It also seems suspicious that there is an SGI
copyright but no AT&T / USL copyright. According to the Unix timeline although
SGI didn't start using SVR4 until 1989, it was released in 1988 (no exact date
and I don't have an exact date for the Berne convention implementation either)
and the changes between SVR3.2 released in 1987 and SVR4 were mainly merging of
BSD derived code. Could it be that SVRx as distributed to many licensees still
didn't contain a copyright statement as late as this and hence even that falls
into the public domain? By the time this case is over there may be nothing left
of the Unix copyrights for IBM to get from SCO.
Other than that the c't article was weaker than I expected - They should have
already known that this was supposed to be the evidence for other infringers,
not IBM but instead wasted about half of the interview discussing that point.
I'd have loved to hear the issue of HP being the ones to actually add this to
Linux being raised too but that was too much to hope for. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
The stock rising is probably all down to it being promoted on CNBC yesterday.
The fact that the "analyst" who was promoting it has admitted elsewhere to
already have a significant holding has been discusssed here earlier.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
Adam, Do you have links to any of this? izzyb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
> Paul and quatermass: Did you read McBride's latest (etc)
Yes. I thought it didn't need an answer - as I think it did plenty of good for
our side even without a response. So much so, I was really hoping it would get
published everywhere (and I guess it still may).
My guess is the CNBC is what drove the price. You have to remember some people
may accept the gamble or the CNBC theory - but there are also some stock holders
who might be betting on a temporary rise in the stock price because of these
"gamblers".
Another thing on this aspect, is new short statistics will be published soon,
and a temporary rise, might drive out some of the shorts. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
Larry,
I should have been more explicit that I was talking about the speculators. As I
said at the end, there are other types of investors too, but those types are not
the type to invest in something as speculative as SCO. I wasn't trying to
insult stock investors, as trying to point out the kind of person who would be
making SCO stock rise despite the facts we all know about. But I agree that
even the speculators will get the message sooner or later, and when that happens
I would expect the stock to drop fast.
And as Adam said, and I alluded in my message, people have recently heard from a
stock analsyst saying, 'Buy! Buy!' People who don't research, but just listen
to such recommendations, may also cause the stock to rise. Remember during the
dot com era how analysts were publicly saying Buy but internally saying 'This is
junk.' Listening to analysts without doing your own due diligence brings its
own 'rewards.' Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
Has anyone pointed out to McBribe that corporations don't develop software
either? That's what programers do and who keeps the copyrights then? In the
GPL'ed software the programers have the copyrights. Every company that I have
worked for thus far, as a condition of empolyment, requires me to sign a release
of my intelectual rights to my work. This sounds more like a highjack than my
donations to the open source comunity. But then again I just preaching to the
choir.
-Mike Mike BMW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
qmass: "I thought Raymond's letter was too emotional. He should have stuck to
factual and legal matters, and pointed out he's not working for IBM :-)"
Yes, but it's perfect!
I really applaud any FOSS representative, who would persuit SCO "on their
level."
Eric's open letter speaks the language of SCO, and it's about time someone got
off their ivory tower, and spoke to them on their level.
I still think highly of Eric, and consider this a big sacrifice on his part.
Someone, with clout, had to do it. Eric had the guts to be that one!
Second, I think someone from the recipients of the SCO to debvelopers letters
(1,600 or so) would take the bait, and file a preliminary injunction against
SCO, until the big guns *IBM and RH) get their time in court.
Masterful move, IMHO.
I'm disappointed that SCO sent me no threats, otherwise I'd have played the
gambit, and sued for preliminary injunction, liable, and asked a court to gag
them until they prove their case in court.
My dedicated dual XEON server (hint: SMP Linux 2.4 enabled) is the one in my
sig, so SCO can track me with a simple "whois command" from my URL, with full
name, address :) tamarian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
Links for the Jonathan Cohen CNBC thing as found by quatermass
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/StockPicks/P50807.asp
htt
p://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_25/b3838120_mz027.htm
I've found another nice quote http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7089&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Blake appears to be confusing the 2000 educational release with the 2002
BSD like one - they really need to get their story straight. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
This poll suggests that the damages RedHat and IBM can claim are relatively
small as there is no damage if no-one believes. Probably helped somewhat by
eWeek having a fairly anti SCO coverage so the figure for the general poulation
may be different.
http://www.ew
eek.com/poll_archive/0,3666,p=1237&bn=1,00.asp Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Love your site.
1+1=10
Your not allowed to use 2 till the radix is 3.
Remove the fruit to email. Charles Esson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
Am I missing something? I see a June date on that Cohen thing.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 22 2003 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
I see the same thing, PJ; the top of the page has June 24, 5:22 PM, but the
stock chart
in the second article shows August 18. Go figure. Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum
erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 23 2003 @ 04:06 AM EDT |
what "our alliance is cooking up next" you think he is referring to?
I've read Eric has System V sourcecode, it that perhaps what is is referring
to? Pete Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 23 2003 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
P.J.:
" Am I missing something? I see a June date on that Cohen thing."
There's something else there that is quite interesting... look at the mast head,
then look to the right side.
"Advertisement"??????
Unless I'm mistaken, this indicates that this whole "news story" is in fact
nothing but a shill for SCO.
Comments?? Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 23 2003 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
Uh, nope, never mind... some of the other stories there also carry this
"Advertisement" disclaimer in the same spot.
What the heck is going on with that? Usually that's a disclaimer that the
attached material is a paid-for ad. I can't
believe all the stock stories on CNBC are all paid ads... Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 23 2003 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
PJ, the article may be old, but I heard Cohen was on TV earlier this week,
basically repeating the same thing. Didn't see the program, so can't be sure if
he was.
That's what's your missing. Effectively a TV infomercial for SCO stock.
If SCO had been half as good at selling Unixware or Linux, as they are at
pushing their stock, do you think this thing would ever have happened? quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|