Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw)
Groklaw has a new set of filings in SCO v. IBM, including SCO's memo opposing IBM's copyright (GPL) infringement summary judgment attempt. "One thing is now clear -- the validity of the GPL is not going to be tested in this case. SCO's incompetence has shut the door to them being able to do that. Now, they are wrapping themselves in the GPL flag."
(Log in to post comments)
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 2, 2004 17:29 UTC (Thu) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] I've gotta admit, I didn't see this coming. SCO is now supporting the GPL (well, for now, anyway)? Is it just me, or is this getting really surreal?
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 2, 2004 19:59 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] It's like in geometry. In any logical system which is not self consistent, it is possible to "prove" anything, and it's opposite are both true.
Similarly, once one starts lying in court, it becomes possible, and apparently in this case, necessary , to "prove" that certain things, and their opposites are both true.
I'm sure that in mathematics, the phonomenon has a specific name. In real life we call it BS. I'm not sure what judges call it. Perjury? Contempt of court?
Oh, and could you pass the popcorn, please? :-)
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 2, 2004 22:15 UTC (Thu) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] Reductio ad Absurdum?
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 3, 2004 0:46 UTC (Fri) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] There was a "Scientific American" article along these lines, where you followed a word, through a chain of synonyms, to its exact opposite. The article only worked on chains of 5 or 6 in length, so the differences were subtle but noticable. There would be nothing to stop someone (such as SCO) using a chain of arguments in the same way.
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 3, 2004 23:01 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] It's even worse than you think! Even logically consistent deductive systems can produce statements that cannot be proved within the system: it's called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.IANAM. ;-)
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 4, 2004 7:16 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] Yes, but Godelian incompleteness does not permit a consistent system to produce two contradictory theorems, such that both are true, and provable, within that system.
Such a system would not be consistent at all.
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 15, 2004 16:35 UTC (Wed) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link] Obligatory link to Russell's paradox:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox Bless the Wikipedia.
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 10, 2004 18:22 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] In law, it's easy to prove something and its opposite are both true, and there's nothing nefarious about it. People who criticize lawyers are people who think the world is so simple that lawyers aren't necessary. Everyone knows what the law is, because it's obvious. So what lawyers do must be to use procedure and intellectual trickery to force a result contrary to that obvious law. But law (and right) isn't obvious. There's a story from law school that irritates lawyer-haters. It's hundreds of years old -- the problem is as old as civilization. A man is sued for borrowing his neighbor's kettle and cracking it. He presents a three-part defense: 1) I never had the kettle. 2) The kettle is not cracked. 3) It was cracked when I got it. A decent lawyer can prove and believe all three of these without lying or cheating. How? Because "cracked" and "borrowed" are open to interpretation. If the judge's interpretation of cracked and borrowed don't allow (1) and (2), they may allow (3) and vice versa. Similarly, SCO can argue the GPL is both valid and invalid in the same case.
Lots of Activity in SCO v. IBM Land (Groklaw) Posted Dec 3, 2004 2:48 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] They're going to run into a big snag, one way or another:
The GPL is the copyright-holders' terms of use (license) of their copyrighted material.
|
|||||||||||||