Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times)
Here's a
New York Times article (registration required) on the SCO suit and its
similarities with a just-settled GPL suit filed by MontaVista against Lineo.
"But in an unpublicized case, one of SCO's former
sister companies, Lineo, has agreed to quietly settle a third party's
accusations that it engaged in the same kind of copyright infringement that
is at the heart of SCO's claim against I.B.M., industry executives who have
been briefed on the matter said.
The case spotlights the behind-the-scenes role of Canopy, an investment
firm formed by Ray Noorda, the founder of Novell and a personal computer
industry pioneer. Canopy is SCO's largest shareholder and formerly
controlled Lineo."
(Log in to post comments)
Got it wrong again! Posted Oct 13, 2003 3:19 UTC (Mon) by rdtennent (guest, #11327) [Link] It's astonishing how clueless these journalists and analysts are. The relevance of this other case is that it is SCO that has been sued by IBM for copyright infringement, not the other way round. The case described represents one of many cases in which the GPL has been quietly vindicated out of court. The suit against IBM is a contract dispute and has nothing to do with the GPL.
Look on the bright side Posted Oct 13, 2003 5:33 UTC (Mon) by fyodor (subscriber, #3481) [Link] That is an excellent point and these errors should be sent to Markoff. HOWEVER, I am still thrilled with this article overall. The general tone is that Canopy are a bunch of hypocrites and they even mention the stock kiting allegations. They note how "SCO has provided little, if any, public evidence that its copyright has been violated." and they include a good quote by Bruce Perens. 3 months ago most of the financial press articles were complete FUD, uncritically parroting SCO press releases. While there are a few serious mistakes, this article demonstrates how the tone has changed and it puts SCO on the defensive. Instead of making more ridiculous accusations, they left SCO/Canopy people saying things like "SCO picked a big fight and it flowed over to the Linux environment and we found ourselves in an awkward position" and "I know I've been painted in a rough light. I hope that our companies are our legacy and not our lawsuits." The tide is turning. Yay! -Fyodor
Got it wrong again! Posted Oct 13, 2003 5:36 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Actually, that's what the story says. SCO, like its spin-off Lineo can be forced to settle because of violating copyrights for GPLed software. Anyway, the story lacks any insight and is not worth reading (IMHO).
What do you expect, it's just the NYT Posted Oct 13, 2003 7:43 UTC (Mon) by raph (guest, #326) [Link] This article is just more evidence that the corporate media is completely unable to do even a mediocre job covering technology. Among the additional errors:* Gets the name of MontaVista Software wrong. * Quotes Laura DiDio as a credible source. Well, at least he didn't quote Enderle. * By using the phrase "copyright infringement that is at the heart of SCO's claim against I.B.M.", he promotes the misunderstanding that SCOX has actually brought a copyright claim against IBM. In fact, it has not brought any such copyright claim. * By using the phrase, "the Unix operating system", he promotes the misunderstanding that there is one such beast and that SCOX owns it. I'm sure others can find more such errors. These seem like the kinds of mistakes a novice reporter, fresh out of J-school, would make, but in fact John Markoff is one of the more highly regarded technology "journalists" in the field. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but readers of LWN and Groklaw get authoritative technology news and research into SCOX. Compared to what the Net, at its best, can provide, the NYT is looking tatty indeed.
What do you expect, it's just the Press Posted Oct 13, 2003 12:53 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] "This article is just more evidence that the corporate media is completely unable to do even a mediocre job covering technology."I've seldom been in a posistion to have first hand facts about Have you ever known the press to accurately report on anything I really wonder what it is exactly, that the press thinks
What do you expect, it's just the Press Posted Oct 15, 2003 11:56 UTC (Wed) by raz (guest, #16034) [Link] I really wonder what it is exactly, that the press thinks it does for a living. Lots of people get this wrong. What the press does for a living is gather audience attention and sell it to advertisers. Contrary to popular belief, the press views readers not as customers, but as product.
Got it wrong again! Posted Oct 13, 2003 15:11 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I hadn't heard about the lawsuit anywhere else in the press. It's always good for a reporter to get the scoop.One thing that annoys me is that people are sort of saying the Lineo case is like the SCO case and the subsequent FUD attack. In the SCO case, SCO released all the source under the GPL and you can still download it from their website. That makes the code perfectly legal to distribute under the GPL. To me the fact that MontaVista had a case where SCO is just lying is the major difference between the two cases.
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) Posted Oct 13, 2003 6:45 UTC (Mon) by Rick174q (guest, #15955) [Link] I liked the part where they suggest that IBM my now have some additional ammo to use in their fight against SCO: "If there are transcripts and pleadings that have been sealed in which Lineo makes the innocent infringement argument, that's a defense that I.B.M. and others could use in their lawsuits," said Jack Russo, an intellectual property lawyer at Russo and Hale in Palo Alto, Calif.
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) Posted Oct 13, 2003 9:52 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Why, because it's funny that they would suggest that? It is difficult toimagine why IBM would have to resort to such a defense when IBM isn't being sued for copyright infringement.
Former ??? FORMER !!! Posted Oct 13, 2003 12:41 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] "former sister company", "formerly controlled by Canopy" ...I think you'll find another shell game is being played here - Canopy STILL controls Lineo ... Someone posted the shareholdings on Groklaw or VarLinux ... Canopy still own about 44% of Lineo. Guess who owns a further 15%? SCO! Cheers,
Former ??? FORMER !!! Posted Oct 13, 2003 17:45 UTC (Mon) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019) [Link] Groklaw shows it to be former. Here's the post:Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:19 AM EDT PJ, I hope you the posts about the updated SCO FAQ in previous discussion. Anyway: 1. http://old.lwn.net/2000/features/Lineo-IPO.phtml QUOTE: Ownership. The largest owner of Lineo stock is the Canopy Group - it has 44.4% of the company. Then comes Caldera Systems, which has 13.1%. The "real ownership" behind those shares could be seen to be Raymond Noorda and Ralph Yarrow, who control Canopy, though they "disclaim beneficial ownership." Dry Canyon Holdings has 8.2% - Bryan Sparks, Lineo's CEO, has an interest in Dry Canyon. Egan-Managed Capital has 6.1%. 2. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-527153.html?legacy=zdnn "Lineo scraps IPO"
QUOTE: Lineo, one of the first companies to sell Linux-based products and services to the embedded market, went through a series of layoffs and spinouts of former acquisitions during the past eighteen months, culminating in a recapitalization last April (when its assets were transferred to "Embedix Inc."). 4. http://lwn.net/Articles/18259/ Dec 2002 "Metrowerks to Acquire Key Assets of Embedix Inc"
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) Posted Oct 13, 2003 14:18 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] When I was a little boy, a charitable organization arranged to get me a piano (I could play, but we didn't have the money for one.) The local paper covered the story:- Got my age wrong There was a second story about it later on, which appeared to be more of a promotion for the organization. They had a gathering in which they had my mother and I standing before a flash camera near a piano. This piano had a shiny case, was perfectly tuned, and was located in a big banquet hall. The article talked about the "tears in his eyes as they presented him with his piano." What actually happened was that my father and some of his friends were shown where the beat-up piano was at that I was supposed to receive, and told that they would have to pay money they didn't have if they wanted it moved to my house. The owners felt the thing was in at least playable shape, and were happy to get rid of it if they didn't have to pay a mover. My father and his friends, who knew nothing about moving pianos, wound up manhandling the thing into our house. It was *not* in playable shape by the time we got it. We had to pay for our own tuning specialist.
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) Posted Oct 13, 2003 15:32 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] You shouldn't blame your father and friends for the piano needing tuning. That's pretty normal after a move of any significance.I would like to underscore your experience and that of "cpm" regarding the media. Every single time where I've had first hand knowledge of an event covered by the news media, the resulting story bore almost no resemblance to what I witnessed. In each case, it seemed that the reporter had talked to someone who had interests in spinning the story in a way orthogonal to reality. It's as if the reporter had said "you draw your line and I'll plot some points to support that". Recent example: Dan Rather of CBS news dragging the names of LANL and an individual through the mud after a certain episode with a Mustang had been thoroughly investigated by appropriate legal authorities. Rather's report was just a pack of lies, but he has the protection of the first amendment, and CBS News has the same inappropriate level of admiration from the general public as does the NYT. Dan Rather is also a frequent apologist for Microsoft. I'll always remember how he reported the news a few years ago of someone throwing a pie in Bill Gates' face. Rather was practically foaming at the mouth. I wish I'd recorded that. Priceless.
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) Posted Oct 13, 2003 16:17 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] Rather's report was just a pack of lies, but he has the protection of the first amendmentThe First Amendment provides no protection for libel or slander. If a reporter or organization runs a story that's a "pack of lies" they can be sued pretty handily. If Dan Rather says on the evening news that company XYZ is selling cars that burst into flames after 14,000 miles, he can be (and would be) sued and would most likely lose -- unless, of course, the car actually did burst into flames at or around 14,000 miles. The only exception here is if Rather said it as an opinion rather than fact, because you cannot sue someone for stating their opinion, no matter how derogatory it may be. (Therefore, "wow, that new Chrysler looks like it would burst into flames before it hit 14,000 miles" might be damaging, but it's legal.) The First Amendment is never protection against libel and slander -- something the folks at SCO would do well to remember.
Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) Posted Oct 13, 2003 19:13 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] I'm sure you're right about all that. CBS News is probably careful to phrase things in just the right way to weasel out in court. Some of the "transducers" which Rather's report implied never existed happen to be sitting on my desk at work. The rest are stored about 50 ft. away. But since CBS never outright stated their non-existence, they can squirm away.Another curious Rather-ism: When Microsoft announced that it would be shutting down chatrooms worldwide since it could not properly monitor them, Dan's spin was that Microsoft will be even more profitable since the chatrooms did not provide a revenue stream. That was presented as an unqualified fact, not even as the opinion of a Microsoft spokesman. But subtle word choices like should or may may keep them out of the position of touting stock.
Getting It Wrong Posted Oct 13, 2003 15:10 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] If news stories just got most of the details wrong, it wouldn't be so bad. The real problem is that they fill their columns with meaningless blather, and miss out on the real story. The real SCO story isn't the lawsuit or its details. The real story is Canopy selling its failed investments to SCO for stock and then selling the stock. The real story is Microsoft and Sun pumping money into SCO to try to tar Linux. The real story is criminal fraud passed off as mundane contractual and license conflicts.The real real story has nothing to do with SCO or Linux. It doesn't have a headline, and there are no details to get right or even wrong. The whole story has been spiked, and you won't read about it in the NYT or the WSJ. What you do find is just there to distract you. Fnord.
boycott to SCO!! Posted Oct 14, 2003 18:11 UTC (Tue) by arboleya (guest, #16009) [Link] For those of you that still do not know, take a look here:http://www.pclinuxonline.com And if you can, write the partners (UnitedLinux) and customers of SCO (attached list) and tell them to stop their relationships. Every cent SCO gets will be used against the GPL license !!! Customers of SCO McDonalds,
|
|||||||||||