Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Grokking SCO's Demise

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the remember-that-one dept.

Caldera 242

An anonymous reader writes "You have already heard the news that the SCO Group's US$5 billion threat against Linux is effectively finished. It was the Web site Groklaw.net that broke the news and posted the complete 102-page ruling; after that, it was picked up by mainstream media and trade press. In fact, it's Groklaw that has covered every aspect of SCO's legal fights with Linux vendors IBM , Novell and Red Hat and Linux users Daimler Chrysler and AutoZone ever since paralegal Pamela Jones started the site as a hobby in 2003. This feature does a great job of chronicling Groklaws' hand in the demise of SCO's case."

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A Self Contradictory Smear. (3, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | about 6 years ago | (#24647371)

We just filtered out the partisan crowd noise -- no mistake, this is a pro-Linux crowd -- and dug into that virtual mountain of legal documents. Everything was there, posted, transcribed, organized and searchable. That's why we all picked up the ruling from Groklaw. And that treasure trove of documents is how we know now that SCO is stick-a-fork-in-it done.

If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ? Perhaps you need to remove that M$ beam from your eye. GNU/Linux people correctly identified the motives, facts and outcome of this trial in days. Then they meticulously documented every bluff, bluster and lie from the SCO/M$ PR people threw out over years in their criminal abuse of the judical system. How can anyone possibly hold the same level of credibility for M$/SCO and GNU/Linux advocates after all of that? This is only something you can do if you are a dedicated MicroSoftologist. It is completely irrational.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (4, Funny)

Zerth (26112) | about 6 years ago | (#24647749)

If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

Well, it is well known that reality has a GNU/Linux bias.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (4, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | about 6 years ago | (#24647759)

Because it's perfectly possible to come to the correct conclusion even while being intellectually dishonest.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (5, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | about 6 years ago | (#24648839)

There's nothing intellectually dishonest about having a point of view. (Pretending not to, on the other hand...)

Interesting?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647799)

If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ? Perhaps you need to remove that M$ beam from your eye... This is only something you can do if you are a dedicated MicroSoftologist.

I guess some armchair sociologists are handing out mod points today. The only way this drivel is "interesting" is if you're observing the posting habits of bitter, spite-driven, FSF worshiping Zealots.

It is completely irrational.

Calling the author a shill for not conforming to the Absolute Truth of the Cult of Stallman? Damn straight, it's completely irrational.

Re:Interesting?! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647933)

Didn't you get the memo? Comments are now like articles: people don't really read them. They are rated by how quickly they come out and how long they are.

Re:Interesting?! (4, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | about 6 years ago | (#24647943)

The only way this drivel is "interesting" is if you're observing the posting habits of bitter, spite-driven, FSF worshiping Zealots.

It isn't the "spite-driven, FSF worshiping Zealots" who sound bitter, my anonymous friend.

Re:Interesting?! (1)

dedazo (737510) | about 6 years ago | (#24648583)

Just twitter.

Re:Interesting?! (4, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | about 6 years ago | (#24648637)

There was an AC who was bitter
That frosty piss belonged to twitter.
For twitter is boring
When he's karma-whoring
Ain't he a loathsome critter?

Re:Interesting?! (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 6 years ago | (#24648711)

The only way this drivel is "interesting" is if you're observing the posting habits of bitter, spite-driven, FSF worshiping Zealots.

Darl, is that you doing AC posts to Slashdot again?

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (3, Insightful)

LarsG (31008) | about 6 years ago | (#24647963)

Oh, please...

It is perfectly possible to be both correct and partisan noisy at the same time.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (4, Insightful)

Jimmy_B (129296) | about 6 years ago | (#24648045)

They have confused reasoned opinion with bias. Our mass media has decided that being unbiased means not favoring one side. This is wrong, of course; if the facts overwhelmingly favor one side, it would be dishonest not to report that fact. Unfortunately, it's easier just to take one press release from each side of a dispute and report both, without making an effort to determine which side is full of liars.

And anyone who does call a liar a liar is called "partisan". It's pathetic.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648251)

I think what he's saying is just that Linux people had a stake in what side prevailed. "Partisan" doesn't mean wrong, and it's not a smear.

Yes, some people think partisan is a smear, but those people probably all watch TV news, where a "non-partisan" bill means something other than "harmful to everyone" and a "partisan" bill means that some legislators happen to oppose it.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#24648325)

And there was this little gem:

Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah.

Boy, does this guy do Groklaw and all its contributors an injustice.

Re:A Self Contradictory Smear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24649155)

If, after looking at everything carefully, you conclude that the GNU/Linux people were right, how can you call what they say, "partisan crowd noise" ?

Straw man arguments are lies.

Wait a minute... (5, Funny)

bigtallmofo (695287) | about 6 years ago | (#24647399)

SCO is dead!? I just bought a new SCO Source license yesterday for $699! Why wasn't I told about this sooner? Thanks a lot, guys.

Anyway, I'm still glad I have the peace of mind of fully licensing all of SCO's Unix intellectual property within my installation of Ubuntu. If you'd like this peace of mind, buy today at:

http://www.caldera.com/scosource/ [caldera.com]

Now does anyone know where I can purchase a rock that wards off tigers?

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647837)

The parent post was written in jest, dolt moderators. Don't you get a classic Simpsons reference when you see one?

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648255)

With thirteen seasons worth of material out there it's a little difficult to keep it all memorized.

Re:Wait a minute... (2)

cp.tar (871488) | about 6 years ago | (#24648719)

With thirteen seasons worth of material out there it's a little difficult to keep it all memorized.

You obviously have a life.
Please hand over your geek card and Slashdot ID... oh, wait!

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 6 years ago | (#24648359)

Honest mistake. You simply failed to ask the right questions before making your purchase. If anybody else has questions about the SCO Source licensing program - any questions at all - you can simply use this handy online form [caldera.com] to ask.

Gambling problem (3, Interesting)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | about 6 years ago | (#24647429)

Perhaps instead of expending all that time, effort, money, and resources on suing the whole world (and causing the whole world to expend a similar amount of time, effort, money, and resources to defend itself), SCO should have concentrated on making technically superior products, marketing them effectively, and earning the rewards that come from making good business decisions. But no, they had to go play the lawsuit lottery. Well, playing that lottery is gambling and is no different than going to a casino and throwing millions on a Poker table. Maybe you'll win, but probably you won't.

Re:Gambling problem (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 years ago | (#24647519)

I don't think that was what this was all about at all. There's enough peculiar connections to Microsoft, plus shades of pump and dump, to make me suspicious that this whole thing was orchestrated as FUD against Linux. Sure SCO must have been upset that it was being relegated to a few legacy POS applications. We'll probably never know the whole truth, but this has all the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to destroy Linux's legitimacy.

Re:Gambling problem (4, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 6 years ago | (#24648551)

It does look suspicious. But the situation could certainly have come around without Microsoft directing it. Though - Microsoft definitely played a strong role.

Ransom Love has commented several times that Caldera had been working with a way to leverage their new SCO acquisition to better their Linux business. There had been some talk of using the Unix code to provide a better Linux (possibly including indemnity). But some time after Darl McBride takes the helm, Ransom Love is out (who then cashes out on news of the IBM suit). New leadership - new strategy time.

Around the same time, Microsoft has been talking about Linux and IP issues. It's labled as typical FUD. But what if it wasn't simply FUD but a public suggestion? An offered business strategy from Microsoft's tactical play book.

The SCO Group (formally Caldera) has been keen for a new play. Their old strategies have lost their charm. They were jilted by IBM. Their fortunes were tied to industries that have felt the sting of a sluggish economy. They hear Microsoft's words and something strikes a chord - "indemnity."

Suddenly things are going in very different directions. Microsoft even ponies up for a license. Exactly why is something of a mystery. Maybe it's insurance - Microsoft has toyed with enough Unix and GPL code that there could be easier to buy protection than wonder if something unexpected is coming their way. Maybe Microsoft is really pleased SOMEONE has finally picked up their suggestion and is keen to either support it with cash or lend an air of legitimacy - or both.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft wasn't unhappy about any aspect of this whole case. But I would expect more evidence to support the idea that they outright orchestrated it. Even if I wouldn't be shocked that such evidence is available to be uncovered.

Re:Gambling problem (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 6 years ago | (#24649035)

There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.

Only people trying to make some kind of deeper conspiracy use words like "why is something of a mystery". The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has it's fingers in virtually EVERYTHING in computers. You can find a connection from anyone and anything to Microsoft, including Linux. That doesn't mean it's not impossible for Microsoft to have been involved, but the "evidence" everyone likes to use is so circumstantial and so easily explained by other means that it's ridiculous.

Re:Gambling problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648959)

You are right, we will probably never know the whole truth of SCO.

But lets go back before M$ recent involvement. Back to 1990 or so when SCO actually sold a product. SCO could have been something, and as others eluded too, Microsoft had their kooks into SCO int he 1980's.

SCO MBA driven management did SCO in. SCO ODT at one time was a great product but the MBAs moved in and let the developers go. Then they over priced the product. While other OSes advanced and kept pace, SCO product development dwindled until the cash dried up. In frustration the ego's of management decided to let the lawyers have a go while they pump'n'dumped stock.

While understanding M$ FUD campaign on Linux is why they helped SCO, I never have quite forgiven Sun in this regard.

Groklaw (4, Insightful)

jhines (82154) | about 6 years ago | (#24647439)

Groklaw is the best thing to come out of SCO's mess. Thanks PJ.

Re:Groklaw (5, Informative)

hyperz69 (1226464) | about 6 years ago | (#24647545)

Second best thing... SCO's demise is the first ;)

Re:Groklaw (5, Insightful)

LehiNephi (695428) | about 6 years ago | (#24647947)

While SCO's demise brings a smile to the faces of nearly all of us, I would argue that the impact of Groklaw will far outlive the SCO vs. Linux cases. Groklaw has also brought to light (and made easily accessible and searchable) the flaws in the OOXML comedy, the testing of open source licenses, and some of the intricacies of the piracy and DRM debates. SCO is done, but Groklaw will continue to provide a valuable service, hopefully for years to come. Yes, Thanks, PJ.

Re:Groklaw - SCO is not dead (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648769)

While I hate to break the news to you, SCO is technically alive, could still be a general nuisance to the who computing business. Until a judge declares them irrevocably bankrupt, they are bought out for remnants and SCO managers are pounding the pavement for work, so is alive. I don't believe in kicking when they are down, but for SCO, I make the exception. Keep the presure on and finish SCO right off.

Re:Groklaw (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 years ago | (#24647569)

Which is why so much energy was spent by SCO and its allies in trying to out PJ whilst simultaneously claiming that she was nothing more than a front for IBM's legal team. That she had the fortitude to withstand constant attack from SCO and its various Wall Street shills, including that lying little piece of shit Daniel Lyons.

Re:Groklaw (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 years ago | (#24648109)

It's a well known tactic. When losing a debate on actual arguments, smear the other side. It reminds me of the old Saturday Night skits with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd where he would start off his counterpoint with "Jane, you ignorant slut." While PJ always had some commentary to the information, it was hard to refute the well-researched and reasoned points in her analysis. So the opposition had to dig dirt on her to make her look bad. Maureen O'Gara tried to post an expose on her and invade her privacy after PJ dismantled O'Gara's arguments and analysis. That move cost O'Gara her jobs as many would argue that breached professional ethics. Both SCO and an MS blogger have tried to allege that she works for IBM directly and indirectly by using a Kevin-Bacon type connection that since IBM belongs to a group that funds the hosting server which Groklaw appears, she worked for IBM.

Re:Groklaw (1)

DI Rebus (1342829) | about 6 years ago | (#24649165)

IBM can be a problematic company to deal with, but they don't generate the ire that SCO and Redmond do. Keep in mind that IBM's lawyers in the 60s and 70s, were reportedly referred to as the Nazgul. http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Nazg [wikia.com] Ãl

This is a year late (5, Informative)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | about 6 years ago | (#24647515)

The way TFA starts about the August 10th ruling, you could think it was a recent event. The author refers to the summary judgment decision of 8/10/2007.
Since then there was a trial, and currently the bankrupt SCO is waiting for the final judgment to be entered to appeal - mainly that year old decision.

Meanwhile, in bizarro world... (5, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 6 years ago | (#24647517)

Some folks are still willing to see SCO as the 'comeback kids' [sltrib.com] (Found from a Groklaw link from today

And, of course, McBride is still harping about how misguided all the 'naysayers' are. Ah, corporate message control - so consistent, no matter the insanity of what is said.

I guess that's the point of freedom - for every choice that can be used to help build something greater, there is also choice to harm others. It's too bad that so much freedom ends up being used to crush the freedom of others for minimal short-term benefit, like those of SCO (which in turn was at least partly on behalf of Microsoft's FUD campaign).

Ryan Fenton
Ryan Fenton

Someone has made a huge error here... (5, Informative)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about 6 years ago | (#24647555)

Umm, has anyone else noticed TFA is claiming the judge's ruling from over a year ago was made last week?

eh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647557)

I met Pamela Jones a few years ago. She makes Cowboy Neal look like a fitness freak. Last I heard, she doesn't use Linux, though.

Re:eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647787)

Did she was wearing a red dress?

Re:eh (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648371)

No, am she wasn't not.

Re:eh (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | about 6 years ago | (#24648703)

And your point is? Even if true, just because she doesn't meet your standards for attractiveness is hardly relevant to anything. Oh, wait, I forgot -- aren't women required by law to meet the standards of beauty set by males nowadays or something?

Slashdot gets it wrong again! (4, Insightful)

scribblej (195445) | about 6 years ago | (#24647563)

From the article:

Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah.

I love Groklaw as much as the next guy, but this article is truly worthless; it just reads as worthless praise for groklaw without even so much as a particular.

Re:Slashdot gets it wrong again! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 6 years ago | (#24648125)

No, you misunderstand. The article does indeed cover Groklaw's hand in SCO's demise: namely, the fact that its influence was nonexistent.

don't be so NEGATI~1 .. :) .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | about 6 years ago | (#24648487)

"The SCO Group 's US$5 billion threat against Linux is effectively finished. On Friday, Aug. 10, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball ruled that SCO doesn't actually own the copyrights that it was using to threaten -- and in some cases, sue -- Linux users"

"It's Groklaw that has published every scrap of legal and technical information available on the cases -- every brief, deposition and ruling, along with press releases, technical documentation and historical information"

"All that has made it easy for reporters, analysts and deep-thinkers keeping an eye on the lawsuits. We just filtered out the partisan crowd noise -- no mistake, this is a pro-Linux crowd -- and dug into that virtual mountain of legal documents. Everything was there, posted, transcribed, organized and searchable"

"Did Groklaw really have an impact on those court cases? Naaah. The impact was on the rest of us. That collection of documents gave SCO's suits a transparency that's impossible to come by with most IT industry litigation"

"For that, we all owe Groklaw thanks"

This guy is one year late (0, Redundant)

Framboise (521772) | about 6 years ago | (#24647595)

Frank Hayes hasn't noticed that the August 10 ruling was for year 2007.

Groklaw is an example of the power of open source (5, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | about 6 years ago | (#24647627)

And SCO is a nice pelt to hang on the fence for anyone getting similar ideas. The SCO case was a stereotype of every piece of misinformation MS had ever put out about Linux and they got crushed. It's also a good example for companies thinking about getting in bed with Microsoft, which financed this whole charade. I wonder if Sun will ever live it down that they were part of the clown posse?

IBM showed a lot of foresight and got to dish out a little payback to MS over the OS2 incident. You can't buy that kind of advertising and then using it to tweak Redmond was priceless.

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647675)

Exactly how is this the power of open source? Looks to me more like the power of high priced corporate attorneys.

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (4, Insightful)

oyenstikker (536040) | about 6 years ago | (#24647765)

It is kinda like how people say "we won" when their favorite sports teams win.

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 years ago | (#24648271)

I was about to ask the same question. It shows the power of a free and open media... However the site could have been run on Windows running IIS, as far as most people would care. There is a general confusion among open source zealots about Open Source, Open Specs, Open Press, Open Government and Free Speech. Yes you can Have Open Source without Free Speech (just as long as your code does what the government wants your code to do, releasing the source is irrelevant) or you can have Free Speech without Open Source, as you will not be imprisoned for stating your views, however you could get legal trouble for releasing source code, but you are free to protest that action.

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24647777)

How did IBM get payback on Microsoft?

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 years ago | (#24647817)

Thing is, I believe that SCO knew it was doomed from the start, but did it anyway.

McBride still made millions of bucks off of the deal, as did most of SCO's principals. Unless/Until there's criminal proceedings for SEC violations, they probably don't care, and are only making noises for long enough to provide plausible deniability. In short - they got their dough, and they probably don't care what happens to SCO from this point on.

SCO lasted five years longer than it probably would have if it had simply died quietly as Yet Another Dot-Bust Carcass.

Finally, most corps know nowadays that getting into bed with MSFT is a sure recipe for disaster. PlaysForSure, HD-DVD, Windows Defender, OS/2, and numerous other smaller examples are proof-positive of just how badly you get burned in any partnership with MSFT... unless of course you're Microsoft. I think only NBC has managed to not get raped in a MSFT partnership (and even then, only because of NBC's vastly different market segments).

As for Sun? I think they simply got caught in the crossfire. They were looking to license SVR permanently so that they could protect (and eventually open-source) Solaris. Otherwise, they were (and are) hating life anyway, as market dynamics dictate that buying pricey Sparc-based servers is kinda stupid for most applications.

/P

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (2, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | about 6 years ago | (#24648417)

Oh, I don't think the SEC has even started yet. Those things take time, and the SEC is waiting for the legal fallout to happen first. This is a typical pattern for the SEC as well, where they wait for all of the normal legal evidence to come out in the various lawsuits, and then add the final insult to injury in the end.

Too bad the SEC couldn't have saved the shareholders (*cough*) some grief by more closely investigating the pump and dump accusations. From what I've seen, besides the compensation on the part of the senior execs at SCO, the only other people who've made money on SCO were those who shorted the stock. Even that wasn't a fantastic deal due to the protracted nature of this legal fight.

I will say that this company seems like the ultimate zombie that just can't be killed. They've used up at least seven of the nine lives that should have killed them a long time ago, and yet they keep coming back for more. I'm really interested in seeing just how much longer they can last... and wondering if the creditors who are taking over the company ownership need to get their head examined for wanting to continue the lawsuits. Then again, who is so incredibly stupid as to loan money to SCO with the hopes that it will someday be paid back?

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 years ago | (#24647831)

In fairness to Sun, Sun actually got something from their SCO agreement. They paid SCO for the right to essentially open source Solaris as some parts of Solaris were covered by their Unix agreements. The problem was SCO didn't have the right to grant Sun this ability. Only Novell has this right. MS on the other hand, paid tens of millions of dollars for things they haven't used yet. Maybe future versions of Windows will use parts of legacy Unix and the newer Unixware, but I doubt it.

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (1)

tchuladdiass (174342) | about 6 years ago | (#24648243)

Didn't Microsoft make "Services for Unix" a free download after paying SCO off? At least that was their cover story.

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 years ago | (#24648741)

"Services for Unix" goes back to 1999 before the SCO saga began, and MS had a Unix OS way back in the day called Xenix which they started developing in the 1970s. The latest variant of Services for Unix includes many modules like GNU and NFS that having nothing to do the legacy Unix that they acquired from SCO. Really if you wanted to develop Unix like compatibility you would develop from BSD which is more flexible and feature rich and no licensing required. Also Novell questioned in the lawsuit that if MS wanted to develop more stuff on Unix, their old AT&T agreements covered it so what were the payments for?

Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | about 6 years ago | (#24648699)

Well said, friend. I wish I had points to give.

Next generation of Groklaw (5, Insightful)

Tolvor (579446) | about 6 years ago | (#24647637)

Groklaw was certainly informative, and it is nice to see major media give a nod of thanks to an internet site that had done their research. What I wonder is where is Groklaw to grok next?

I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time.

Grok IP law and squelch that mess once and for all.

And since it the season, groking certain political parties (or all of them) would be nice.

Re:Next generation of Groklaw (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 6 years ago | (#24647753)

"I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time."

Well, I'd vote for wokking the RIAA.

I'd prefer them with noodles and a sweet-sour sauce too. Please leave the tauge, I don't like tauge.

Re:Next generation of Groklaw (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 6 years ago | (#24648461)

always thought the RIAA etc was similar to what comes several hours after eating something.

Re:Next generation of Groklaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647791)

I'd vote for Apple.Vs.Psystar

Re:Next generation of Groklaw (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#24648387)

I'd vote for Groking RIAA, big time.

Ray Beckerman's blog already does a pretty good job of Grokking the RIAA. Still, the more transparency the better.

Caldera/SCO garbage (1)

jessedorland (1320611) | about 6 years ago | (#24647653)

I didn't even think about this until I saw the posting. In any even who really care expect for Microsoft. After all Redmond was actively supporting a fellow thief.

Props to Groklaw... (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 years ago | (#24647665)

Pamela has taught us (well, at least myself) quite a few things about tech and the law:

* Legal matters may be messy, disgusting things, but in a perverse way, being a lawyer or judge often requires as much (if not more) logical and mental discipline than programming ever did.

* This crap takes time. Five years... five years! Just to throw out what folks who knew better (read: those of us who lived/worked/breathed Linux) saw instantly as an obvious cock-and-bull scam by a dying dot-bust corporation.

* There's a lot going on behind the curtain. Without Groklaw, Microsoft could have credibly denied being any part of the proceedings, and would've been almost perfectly insulated from the whole SCO mess. Now, they're painted with 98 shades of evil, and the tech community at large** has even more reason to reject them unless absolutely necessary.

* Most folks think that IT/Tech is pretty insulated and isolated from the usual crap that infects most businesses. Groklaw proves otherwise. As much as we'd like to be otherwise, we're just as mired and smothered in politics and legal crap as any other commercial endeavor.

I highly recommend Groklaw as a solid starting point for any CS student, perhaps as a semester or two of curricula... just to get the students to realize just what the hell kind of crazy world they're signing on to.

/P

** I mean real techs who use multiple platforms, not "Em-See-Ess-Aaay's" who happily swallow Redmond's Kool-Aid (among other fluids) on a near daily basis.

Re:Props to Groklaw... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647723)

shut the fuck up. seriously. had the decision swung the other way you'd be protesting this as a fraud. you little bitches don't have the nerve to stand up for what is right.

Re:Props to Groklaw... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647873)

Oh look, an angry Microsoft/SCO shill! Amusing.

Re:Props to Groklaw... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 years ago | (#24648023)

Hi, Darrell! Tell Boies we all said "pwned", willya?

Re:Props to Groklaw... (3, Insightful)

oyenstikker (536040) | about 6 years ago | (#24647813)

Now, they're painted with 98 shades of evil. . .

Everybody who thought they were evil beforehand still does. Everybody who loved them beforehand still does. Everybody who did not have a clue beforehand still does not.

No PHB is going to avoid Microsoft products because of this.

Re:Props to Groklaw... (1)

poena.dare (306891) | about 6 years ago | (#24648061)

(Applause)

Re:Props to Groklaw... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 6 years ago | (#24648945)

We all know Microsoft is 98 shades of evil. Why isn't anything ever actually DONE about that?

Used to Be 98 shades (4, Funny)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | about 6 years ago | (#24649131)

Well actually Microsoft used to be 98 shades of evil. Then they tried to make evil pretty for the MillEnnium. After that they grew to 2000 shades of evil. Eventually they became eXPerienced at being evil. Finally nowadays they've moved to a much broader form of evil. A VISTA if you will.

Some mishtake shurly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647685)

"So when Judge Kimball ruled this month that Novell, not SCO, owns the copyrights to Unix, we know he eliminated the basis for SCO's copyright claims against IBM, Red Hat and AutoZone, too."

That ruling was issued on the 10th August 2007. I know Groklaw readers are slow on the uptake, but a year?

Great job? (3, Interesting)

PinkPanther (42194) | about 6 years ago | (#24647693)

... a great job of chronicling Groklaws' hand in the demise of SCO's case

What is this article doing that is great? At best it is a 100,000 foot view of the past 5 years...but there is no "chronicling" going on.

The information in this article is barely worthwhile to someone who knows nothing about the SCO case (and that type of person wouldn't care about Groklaw anyways), and has ZERO information in it for everyone else.

Nothing says you love Groklaw (5, Informative)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about 6 years ago | (#24647711)

Like donating to the site. It's a massive amount of work that PJ has put into the site. So if you got a few bucks, donate. Sorry, but it has to be said and PJ won't say it.

Re:Nothing says you love Groklaw (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647907)

Karma whore.

Re:Nothing says you love Groklaw (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648547)

Like donating to the site. It's a massive amount of work that PJ has put into the site. So if you got a few bucks, donate. Sorry, but it has to be said and PJ won't say it.

Personally I prefer to donate to sites or projects that provide an accounting for my funds. For example, if a very popular project or site has already pulled in far more money than it needs, my money would be better spent on a less popular but worthy project rather than just further enriching the owner of the popular one. But without an accounting I have no way of telling, and the donation pages of PJ's site show none.

Copyright provenance as the initial question (2, Interesting)

retiarius (72746) | about 6 years ago | (#24647725)

Although many of us pointed out the question of Novell's
ownership of the actual copyrights at the outset, why isn't the
law structured to eliminate much sturm and drang by hoisting
this test out of the loop as an initial cutoff? Or were
the parallel lawsuits invoked without common sense
serialization just done for fun? I suspect the real reason
is that the motion practice follies made for good
billable hours...

Grokking? (1)

Mr.Fork (633378) | about 6 years ago | (#24647829)

Maybe the work Grokking can be now referred to the lambasting of frivolous software patent lawsuits by SCO-like troll companies. We all hate SCO like trolls that all they do is make money by suing others with patents they own, but don't actually use because all the do is think stuff up on how things could work and then take advantage of the Patent Office's own weaknesses in approving 'my-dog-can-fart' processes. A big hi-five to my fellow Grokkers!

Re:Grokking? (0, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24648087)

in my country, "grokker" is when you are having sex with girl (like dog style) and she does stinky on you!

And Just How Much... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 6 years ago | (#24647891)

And just how much did this little adventure cost all of us through these years? And who pays in the end for all the lawyers, disruptions, changed and shelved plans, and the rest of the collateral damage caused by this SCO debacle?

Ironic I'm reading Stranger in a Strange Land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24647955)

Because I Grok this article and I'm really Groking Heinlein's stories.

I'd like to put a face on Pamela Jones (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about 6 years ago | (#24648009)

I have always wondered who Pamela Jones is. This lady is very meticulous in what she does and I congratulate her. I have done an image search on Google and got some images.

But I am not sure the images I get in the search actually represent Pamela Jones. Googling my own name returns images other than mine!

Request: I am looking for a kind slashdotter to help me put a face on the name "Pamela Jones" of Groklaw.net.

Thanks.

Re:I'd like to put a face on Pamela Jones (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648175)

You're welcome [creativecommons.org] .

Re:I'd like to put a face on Pamela Jones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648397)

Stupid mod. That is an image of PJ.

Re:I'd like to put a face on Pamela Jones (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 6 years ago | (#24648183)

Nice Try. It is not going to happen.

Does she really exist? (1)

mark99 (459508) | about 6 years ago | (#24648203)

Didn't SCO accuse Pamela Jones of non-existence? That she was a construct of IBM's legal team or something? I can't recall the details, except I don't think we ever saw conclusive proof that she did exist.

Not that it matters. But I would be curious to know. It always struck me as unusual that a sharp female paralegal would be that interested in the fate of Linux or Open Source. Not competely implausable, but a bit strange nonetheless.

Re:Does she really exist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24648289)

My mother is Pamela Jones, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'd like to put a face on Pamela Jones (1)

revlayle (964221) | about 6 years ago | (#24648327)

Then, when that is done... we can Rule 34 it!

get it here .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | about 6 years ago | (#24648561)

Get it here founder of Groklw [flickr.com]

Cravath and IBM should get more credit (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 6 years ago | (#24648131)

The real turning point in the case was when IBM decided to fight SCO's claims and put Cravath, Swaine, and Moore LLP on the job. Cravath is very good; they say of themselves "Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is known as the premier American law firm.", and nobody laughs. They're very organized and thorough. Cravath was the first firm to use litigation support systems (developed by IBM for an IBM case). They can't be snowed with documents; they'll put enough people and hardware on the job to deal with truckloads of materials when necessary. At times, the staff for a single case has filled a sizable office building. This is expensive, but it works.

It works especially well when the other side has voluminous but bogus claims. That's what happened with SCO. All SCO's claims were analyzed by that huge staff, checked, and countered. In the end, SCO had nothing left.

Groklaw reported on all this, but Cravath really did the work.

Re:Cravath and IBM should get more credit (3, Funny)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 6 years ago | (#24648477)

Must have been an amazing sight, each morning as the lawyers from CS&M landed their fell beasts on the courthouse steps, Armani suits so dark they seem to drink the light, Morghul briefcases clutched in their skeletal hands, eyes glowing with lambent red flame as they gleefully contemplated slicing off and devouring tiny slivers of Darl's withered soul.

Re:Cravath and IBM should get more credit (2, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 years ago | (#24648989)

Cravath is impressive. I remember one argument where they gave the judge five reasons they were right. If any of the five were accepted, then they won their argument. They always addressed SCO's every point while SCO at times failed to address IBM's points. There was a few episodes where IBM pointed out the SCO didn't address their points at all but used a maze of circular cross references that led nowhere. [flickr.com] (See Arg 233 -> See Arg 228 -> See Arg 27 -> See Arg 187 -> See Arg 27 -> infinity)

Groklaw is a phenomenal site, but (0, Troll)

DF5JT (589002) | about 6 years ago | (#24648237)

does anyone seriously think that all the brilliant legal and technical analyses come from a mid-twenties paralegal?

I find that hard to believe, particularly since some of the analytical papers are long and yet precise. All this writing - and there is lots of it on GL - takes quite some time to write, to edit, to back up with facts, to think through. Plus all the time it takes to scour all possible info channels, keep a team of volunteers working and coordinate it, keep up with tons of internal and external communication, keep up with keeping a blog forum "clean" with a heavy hand, keep up with the latest development in free and open source software etc.

While I believe there may actually be a Pamela Jones, however elusive she may be, I strongly doubt that she is the only one running this site. She will need legal advice on practically everything in the blog, given the litigatioous nature of its rivals, she will need a sophisticated back office system for data storage, analysis, retrieval and processing and a superior mind to keep all these aspects from falling apart, keeping her minions at bay and generally run a tight ship, both on the inside and the outside. The "biography" of said Pamela Jones most certainly gives no hint at these international leadership qualities, neither in elite education, nor in any previous jobs or projects.

She must be the only open source "leader", who does not appear in public. Bizarre, if you ask me, and I can only surmise that her legal knowledge and expertise wouldn't hold up in a 3minute chit chat with a legal mind.

Either that, or she is butt ugly.

Re:Groklaw is a phenomenal site, but (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 6 years ago | (#24648323)

"mid-twenties paralegal?" Double that and then add a few years.

Re: Groklaw is a phenomenal site, but (1)

rs232 (849320) | about 6 years ago | (#24648367)

"does anyone seriously think that all the brilliant legal and technical analyses come from a mid-twenties paralegal?"

Lots of people contribute, not just Pamela Jones and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary your opinions are worthless. By the same CmdrTaco doesn't exist but is a vast army of corporate drones ..

Re: Groklaw is a phenomenal site, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24649033)

By the same CmdrTaco doesn't exist but is a vast army of corporate drones ..

Wait... so you mean CmdrTaco IS a real person?

Pssh. Pull the other one. Next you'll be trying to convince me CowboyNeal isn't an android sent to warn us about the future by means of cryptic poll choices.

Re:Groklaw is a phenomenal site, but (1)

Benanov (583592) | about 6 years ago | (#24648577)

What makes you think she's mid-twenties? She certainly seems a lot older in some of the references she makes. I'd place her around 40.

In the end (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | about 6 years ago | (#24648353)

Daryl has of late said they will reap the benefits of the software they have recently put "10's" of millions of dollars into".

Instead, I believe they will reap what they have sown, but not to his vision.

SCO ain't dead, so we better work at it. (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about 6 years ago | (#24648515)

Vampires and monster movie lore has the creatures ever rising once the hero's attention has been shifted.

We need to keep after SCO. There was an article about how SCO is partnering with another company that they "trust."

We need to boycott EVERY company that does business with SCO.

SCO is a corporate cancer that must not be allowed to survive.

A question of infringement (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 6 years ago | (#24648955)

If SCO's lawsuit failed because Novell rather than SCO owns UNIX, does that mean Linux is now infringing on Novell IP rather than SCO IP?

No.. There is no Unix in Linux (1)

the_rajah (749499) | about 6 years ago | (#24649183)

Besides, just as SCO has been proven to have done, Novell has distributed Linux under the GPL so they would have no claim anyway.

In Simple English (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24649011)

Is SCO Finally dead? I got some 10 year old aged rum that I've been specifically saving for this day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>