Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica)Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica)Posted May 2, 2008 5:52 UTC (Fri) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)Parent article: Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica)
"We have evidence System V is in Linux" That seems like either perjury, or he has been misled by his staff (and that's giving him a large dose of the benefit of the doubt). Regardless, very good to have this on record, it'll come in handy later on I'm sure. "Linux is a copy of UNIX" Well, this one is debatable. If he meant it in a loose manner, then it's sort of true: Linux is a *NIX-type system, shares much of the same architecture and many small details. Perhaps if Groklaw gets complete transcripts up we can see the context of this sentence, and figure out if he meant 'copy' in the literal sense or in an informal way.
(Log in to post comments)
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2008 6:25 UTC (Fri) by xorbe (guest, #3165) [Link] Linux is 'just' the kernel.
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2008 13:28 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ "We have evidence System V is in Linux" That seems like either perjury, or he has been misled by his staff """ Courts are exceedingly reluctant to pierce the corporate veil, placing liability upon individuals acting on behalf of the corporation. However, if an individual, acting as an officer of a corporation, knowingly lies to the court... how is that handled? Surely someone must be held responsible. Could we actually see Darl personally punished by the court over perjurous statements like that one?
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2008 14:40 UTC (Fri) by charlieb (subscriber, #23340) [Link] > Surely someone must be held responsible. Have you not been watching? Besides, this debacle is very small change compared to the Iraq invasion - who's been held responsible for that? Just 'cause something's wrong doesn't mean that the wrongdoers will be called to account.
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2008 16:19 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] > Have you not been watching? Besides, this debacle is very small change compared to the Iraq invasion - who's been held responsible for that? Yes because it would be very difficult to have the Congress convict itself.* * Note that the president is being used as a scapegoat by the media and congress. And frankly your vote over president is completely irrelevant and always has been. This is by design. Similar to how you don't elect federal judges. It's effectively the states governments that elect the president. The whole presidential election nowadays is effectively a overblown stage show meant to make 'the people' feel like they have control over something while mostly ignoring the people that really matter. (ie: Congress) And I don't beleive for a second that they were lied to. If they missed information the president had it is because they didn't want to see that information.
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 3, 2008 1:59 UTC (Sat) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link] You going to be using all that tinfoil or could I borrow some?
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 3, 2008 2:12 UTC (Sat) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] You hadn't heard? The NSA has developed a ray that can travel through tinfoil. You have to use multiple layers of goldfoil.
Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: "Linux is a copy of UNIX" (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2008 18:03 UTC (Fri) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] sbergman27 wrote: Courts are exceedingly reluctant to pierce the corporate veil, placing liability upon individuals acting on behalf of the corporation. However, if an individual, acting as an officer of a corporation, knowingly lies to the court... how is that handled? Holding corporate officers accountable for deeds they actually do is not "piercing the corporate veil". That phrase refers to assigning liability directly to corporate shareholders (as owners) for deeds of the corporate entity and its agents (officers), without any showing of their personal involvement, which assignment by law cannot be done unless there's a strong showing that the corporate entity was a sham with no economic substance (i.e., a vehicle for deflecting liability, by hiding personal dealings within a corporate shell). I half-remember from my law classes[1] one of the leading cases of "piercing" involved a city where taxicabs were set up as allegedly independent corporations, one per cab, to limit liability exposure from car-accident plaintiffs. The court applied the sued mini-corporation's liabilities to its owners, holding that it was the "alter ego" of that larger owner. The larger point is that it's always eminently possible sue corporate officers (and corporate directors) for deeds in which they have actual, provable, personal involvement. That's the whole reason why they tend to carry a million US dollars or more in directors' liability insurance. (This meme that a corporate entity automatically totally shields from liability anyone associated with the corporation, even for deeds they were personally involved in, seems to have passed around the Linux community for a while. I don't know why, but I've been doing my part to point out this potentially dangerous error, e.g., in the Linux User Group HOWTO (see section "Common Misconceptions Debunked") In short, any corporate officer who commits perjury in court is potentially in big trouble, exactly to the degree he or she would be, had he or she done the same thing in an individual capacity. Rick Moen [1] No, IANAL. However, I studied business law extensively, albeit long ago, in part in preparation to pass the CPA exam.
|
|||||||||||