Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
How to muzzle SCO (Inquirer)
The Inquirer calls for
an injunction to shut up SCO. "Red Hat's first serious barrier
to successfully requesting a Preliminary Injunction against SCO's
disparagement and interference in its business is that it has not seen and
therefore cannot show a significant decline in its sales since March 2003
-- when SCO initiated its lawsuit against IBM and started its public
campaign to trash Linux and Open Source."
(Log in to post comments)
microsoft Posted Aug 25, 2003 6:35 UTC (Mon) by lyda (guest, #7429) [Link] could people please lay off microsoft? if people *must* bring up microsoft there's a better way.first, sco has already shook ms down for licensing fees. second, mcbride has stated that those fees do not cover all of sco's ip. third, mcbride has also stated that unix and its derivitives (which it claims it owns) make up the foundation of all modern os's. (annoyingly i can't remember the links to the interviews where he says this) one can look at all of this and decide that once sco has defeated ibm and linux users, it will then move on to collect what it is owed from microsoft. this means that by defending ourselves from sco's ip over-reach, we are also defending microsoft who has already been bullied into paying some money. and even though we often disagree with microsoft on technical grounds and others, we don't think it would be just or fair for sco to steal the rights to windows. i think a statement like that would be rather newsworthy in a man-bites-dog kind of way. it's also a reasonable interpretation of sco's actions and statements. and if such a point of view was well published it might elicit responses from both ms and sco that might be amusing/useful.
microsoft Posted Aug 25, 2003 12:24 UTC (Mon) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link] please... MS doesn't need anybody's defence. they deserve every bit of hassle they may get from SCO (but this obviously does not mean "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). MS propped up SCO with $$$ - if MS didn't step up to the plate (disguised as a "license payment"), I doubt we would be seeing the SCO FUD generator.
microsoft -conspiracy- Posted Aug 25, 2003 16:29 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] CONSPIRACY THEORY, WHAT CONSPIRACY "THEORY" ??From as about 10 million reasons made public, and perhaps as much or more under the table, scientifically he can no longer call it "THEORY", but better as a "LAW" or a "AXIOM". So its better call it the M$ conspiracy LAW or AXIOM,..., with 99% more certainty than if you asked where are the WMDs;... M$ needed a SCO licence as bad as lions need flowers to compose their lairs. THERE ARE ENOUGH LAW SUITS As a manager of a small IT company, i belive the better way to deal with it, is for the PRESS, any PRESS, specialy the one that has some simpaty for Linux/OSS, to ignore them. Above all in the field of "POSSIBILITIES" of "plagiarism" or any other "fault". AFAIK THERE IS NO PLAGIARISM OR INFRINGEMENT EVEN IN SCO VIEW. This is not pretending otherwise or ignoring problems. It's facing the reality of -"FUD AS IT IS"- . Cold, racionaly, if there were "plagiarism" or "copyright infingement" SCO would have sued IBM or someone else for that. Not for some contract breach that implies that "all IBM code is theirs". The clear intention of this is "NOISE". So stoping even the slitest mention of possibility of any fault in the PRESS/Public exposure; "palgiarism", copyright infringement, or what ever until it's proved by SCO, is the only way to prevent them from doing damages before they go belly up. THE OTHER WAY IS WHAT THEY WANT,...AND SO, PLEASE DONT BUY INTO THAT SHIT.
microsoft -conspiracy- Posted Aug 25, 2003 16:35 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Sorry, my comment above was a reply to "lyda" and not to "djabsolut",... my mistake.
How to muzzle SCO (Inquirer) Posted Aug 25, 2003 8:02 UTC (Mon) by fuertw (guest, #10561) [Link] Someone (like IBM for example) should buy SCO.
How to muzzle SCO (Inquirer) Posted Aug 25, 2003 8:13 UTC (Mon) by nigelm (subscriber, #622) [Link] No, if IBM buy SCO then McBride has basically won - he's pumped thestock and got a payoff. Any final solution has to leave a smoking crater where SCO was, and
How to muzzle SCO (Inquirer) Posted Aug 25, 2003 12:43 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] If IBM has it their way with the patent lawsuit, SCO will soon be out of business anyway. And my bet is that it'll cost less than to buy them. There is also the matter of principle - why would they want to buy something they already paid for - the right to use Unix? Just like Scott of the Sun fame said they they've bought the sucker, so did IBM. No reason to pay again.I don't know. Things might be more complicated than I see them, but from what's available, SCO have such a flimsy case. It seems that this McBride fellow is into suing people a lot, so this time he thinks he can pull it off with IBM and possibly others. We'll see. So far IBM didn't call any of their bluffs, buying them out at 13.5 bucks a share would be a bit over the top.
A buyout is one of the worst possibilities Posted Aug 25, 2003 16:54 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] If there's a buyout, true, the court case vanishes by virtue of becoming an intra-company squabble. But, in the absence of a judicial decision, there's nothing to shut up the FUD-rakers. They'll claim IBM did it because SCO was right, and we'd be unable to point to an ATT/BSD-style judgment saying differently. When IBM owns whatever rights [**cough]if any[cough**] SCO now owns, Linux would be better off only by whatever amount the user trusts IBM more than SCO. If IBM becomes cash-strapped at some future date, .... Best wishes,Max Hyre
A bit off topic but it involves SCO Posted Aug 25, 2003 13:51 UTC (Mon) by WZot (guest, #13623) [Link] I've been in contact SCO a couple times pretending to be a buying customer ;)Well; today I got an e-mail from them. Just wanted to paste it in here for all to look: *****************************************************
we are currently finalizing the details of our programme for licensing Company Name: We kindly thank you for your patience and remain with Best Regards They could at least have created a web form. And why asking for my e-mail? They allready got that one. :D
A bit off topic but it involves SCO Posted Aug 25, 2003 17:16 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] They have sniffed you!Well, they have a pretty stinking database, or they are in the business to sell a linux licence to anyone even if that people didn't run or wanted to buy Linux !... Because if they stoped publicly any selling of Linux, they could only be selling you Unixware or Openserver, and those products dont require a linux license... or perhaps they do, accounting the quantity of code stolen from Linux as comform with Greg Lehey's specialized analisis posted in this site: ""If SCO now has functions like mutex_spinlock in the kernel, it -"would appear"- that they have thrown out their own SMP implementation and incorporated the Linux version " All you have to do is replace " would apeear" by " is a filthy stinking robbery", and you get the correct view. This IMO, because they didnt got yet, in the state of total confusion before the total collapse.
Too late (was: How to muzzle SCO) Posted Aug 25, 2003 21:41 UTC (Mon) by lshurr (guest, #10094) [Link] It would be nice if we didn't have to listen to SCO's noxious fulminating anymore, but it's too late to close the door on the issues they have raised. I don't mean to give them credit for anything, but Linus himself has said that he expected something like this would happen eventually. In retrospect, I believe he's right, so it might as well be now, and with this adversary than some other. It's disturbing to think that SCO's whirling and thrashing through the courts and the media, through corporate boardrooms and the offices of the owners of small businesses, through the reputations, if not the lives, of Linus Torvalds and other heavy hitters, and even our very psyche's, may actually be preferable to some of the alternatives we might have had to face.SCO should cease fulminating and actually speak with Linus and other controllers of the code, but they can't do that because it's a sure ticket to oblivion. If they were to provide specifics instead of the drek they're trying to feed us, that would allow everyone to judge the merits of their assertions on some kind of meaningful basis and, further, it would allow for a remedy if one were really needed. But that scenario provides little or no cash and no favorable market impact for an ineffective company which Darl McBride himself admitted was failing. Instead, they are attempting to assert control if not ownership of fundamental property rights for which violation of, they are entitled to rich monetary rewards, property rights which arguably, do not exist. It appears to me that they are attempting to create new law which allows them to charge "something for nothing" -- a handy business plan if you can pull it off.
|
|||||||||||