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!

Groklaw Turns One

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the slow-sunday dept.

Caldera 181

JuliusRV writes "Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary! As PJ writes, 'What a difference a year makes. When we started, all the headlines were saying that SCO was going to destroy Linux or at least make it cry. Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead. I think the truth, as usual, isn't in the headlines, and that it's somewhere in between those two extremes.' Thanks, PJ and all other Groklawyers, keep up the good work!"

cancel ×

181 comments

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

First p0st! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170421)

YEP!

Ooh must be my lucky day (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170422)

First p0st. I pwnz0r j00. WHO loves FOOSBALL!!!!!

Re:Ooh must be my lucky day (-1, Offtopic)

ircbuddy (732046) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170460)

Stop whining.

Did I get... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170423)

first?

Poastest with da Mostest! (-1, Offtopic)

RumpRoast (635348) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170425)

w00t!

Remember... (4, Insightful)

kemapa (733992) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170426)

Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead.

You must remember that back in the days of the OJ trial many thought he would be convicted, but he wasn't. And people have said so often how Apple will die soon / tomorrow / whatever. So I would hesitate to predicate SCO's doom just yet... but a man can dream!

Re:Remember... (2, Funny)

Prod_Deity (686460) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170428)

You forgot to add *BSD to your list. :-)

Re:Remember... (3, Insightful)

Suburbanpride (755823) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170449)

I for one do not have much faith in our legal system. forget OJ, look at Microsoft. half a decade in the courts has not forced a change in Microsoft's business practices.

As bad as SCO's case is, never say never.

Re:Remember... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170456)

As bad as SCO's case is, never say never.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Insightful? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9171006)

As bad as SCO's case is, never say never.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

I couldn't have made a more redundant comment myself.

Re:Remember... (2, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170672)

The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money. If an individual kills someone, and everybody realizes it, but they have a ton of money, they might have a shot at convincing a judge and jury to let them get away with it. But with companies, once their employees, investors, and customers recognize that they're full of shit [yahoo.com] , even if the judge doesn't, they lose. Soon someone will take them over, terminate and settle the lawsuits, and make a small amount of profit selling what's left of the value in the company.

Re:Remember... (4, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170775)

The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money. If an individual kills someone, and everybody realizes it, but they have a ton of money, they might have a shot at convincing a judge and jury to let them get away with it.

I don't think this concept can be applied so broadly. The lesson I take from the OJ trial is not that millions of dollars can buy acquital, but that millions of dollars can uncover enough potentially exculpatory evidence that might not be seen otherwise. Which is depressing not because OJ went free (although I do think, based on almost zero knoweldge of the case, that he's guilty), but because hundreds of poorer, dumber people are convicted and even sentenced to death based on far worse evidence, because they had no effective legal representation. (Texas being the worst example, which is why I lost all respect for Bush a long time ago, back when compassionate conservatism seemed like it might be the real thing.)

As for the parallel to SCO, bear in mind that they went up against one of the largest computer companies and a huge user and developer community that were obviously going to take it personally. This means that there is tons of money (or manpower - all of the anti-SCO research would have cost a boatload if a real law firm was doing it) being spent fighting SCO, and they're getting slowly bludgeoned to death as a result. The fact that it's a distributed and largely non-profit effort shouldn't obscure that. SCO really sees itself as the underdog in this fight, and they're correct. (A snarling, vicious little dog, that's trying to gnaw your trousers whenever it isn't copulating with your shoe.)

Re:Remember... (4, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170840)

I didn't watch much of the OJ trial, but I've heard from others that one of the things that OJs lawyers did was eliminate any juror that might vote for conviction from the jury and get them replaced with alternates. There were many jurors eliminated, and they almost ran out of alternates.

That's the part that's about "buying freedom". I don't think anyone should be able engineer a jury like that. The problem isn't that everyone can't do this, it's that if you have enough $$ you can.

Corporate cases like this are a bit different of course since the judge is going to be (hopefully) un-engineerable. Microsoft got off scot free by just stalling until the administration changed and the new justice dept dropped the whole matter.

Re:Remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170944)

Quick OJ Recap:
+ Lead Detective perjured himself on the stand.
+ Other detective somehow "misplaced" a half vial of OJ's blood.
+ If the glove did not fit, you must acquit.

Seriously, any honest jury in America would have let OJ off, even if they believed he did it.

Re:Remember... (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9171018)

As well as:
+ Other detective said he wanted to put all black people in a pile and burn them
+ Other dectective "misplaced" a half vial of OJ's blood on a late night trip to the crime scene
+ Other detective also happened to be the one who found all the evidence, including a pin head sized drop of blood on OJ's car at 5:00 in the morning
+ Blood on OJs sock shown to have soaked right through from one side to the other, indicating it was placed on the sock when there was no foot in it
+ Lead Detective testified that Ron Goldman put up a fight for his life yet OJ had no marks or bruises on his body except a small scratch on his hand

Re:Remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9171062)

Goldman also officially requested disability leave because he hated black people so much he couldn't function as a police officer. Yet was still assigned lead on the OJ case.

Sad thing is that someone needed a million dollar attorney to reveal how corrupt and incompetant the police are.

Re:Remember... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170951)

That's the part that's about "buying freedom". I don't think anyone should be able engineer a jury like that. The problem isn't that everyone can't do this, it's that if you have enough $$ you can.

Everyone can do this and everyone does. It's called jury selection and is a normal part of a criminal trial. It doesn't matter how much money you have either. All you need is an attorney who will eliminate the people from the jury who will vote guilty no matter what evidence is presented before them. The prosecution also gets to kick people off the jury so why does this bother you? The whole point of jury selection is to get as fair and impartial a jury as possible and it achieves that. Or would you prefer to have had known racists on the OJ jury? Then we could just skip the trial and string him up from a tree.

Re:Remember... (-1, Offtopic)

killjoe (766577) | more than 10 years ago | (#9171042)

Completely off topic but...

I know it's contraversial but IMHO OJ should have been aquitted. I watched the trial obsessively and quickly came to the conclusion that OJ murdered his wife and her friend AND the police tried to frame him. The police probably realized that the case would be hard to prove so they doctored the crime scene and planted the glove.

Under these circumstances even the guilty should be aquitted so as not to incentivise the police to plant evidence.

Re:Remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170887)

although I do think, based on almost zero knoweldge of the case, that he's guilty

Let me guess, is it because he is black? If you are a racist at least be honest about it.

Re:Remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170894)

The lesson I take from the OJ trial is not that millions of dollars can buy acquital, but that millions of dollars can uncover enough potentially exculpatory evidence that might not be seen otherwise.

That's an entirely illogical conclusion, and incorrect as well. If you want to talk about lessons based on "almost zero knowledge of the case", you should probably first read and educate yourself on what really happened, and how, and why. Otherwise, STFU and quit pontificating on matters about which you are not qualified to have an opinion.

Re:Remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170933)

Texas being the worst example, which is why I lost all respect for Bush a long time ago, back when compassionate conservatism seemed like it might be the real thing.

There are some of us who would have abolished the death penalty ages ago, given the chance... Some of us are even more concerned about, say local problems the homeless are facing (stupid law here effectively criminalizes sleeping if you're homeless; I don't care who I have to vote for to get rid of it) and would rather feed them homeless than ostracizing gay people.

I wish there were more of us.

Re:Remember... (2, Informative)

eric76 (679787) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170961)

There's also the T. Cullen Davis case.

Some people said that he was the first murder defendant in Texas that was richer than the state.

American justice is based on many things (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170888)

"The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money."

That's a gross oversimplification. Trial by jury is prone to the influence of money in that better lawyers can be hired by one side or the other, but in the end it's even more prone to the social context in which the case takes place.

For example, jury trials in the American South before the enacting of federal Civil Rights legislation were absurdly biased in favor of whites and against blacks. This had nothing to do with money and everything to do with racism.

Big companies in the age of Rockafeller and Carnegie were left relatively unfettered until Americans began to resent the range and depth of the Robber Barons' influence. Then in trial after trial, the monopolies were hit hard by plaintiffs seeking damages from large companies. When Americans perceive a powerful entity as being generally useful, they tend not to press it too hard, but when they see it as having overstepped its bounds, juries tend to come down against Big Business.

Witness the recent spate of Wall Street trials. While there was certainly widespread malfeasance during the Dot-Com era, the Tyco execs, Martha Stewart, et. al. are in some ways being convicted not because of what they specifically did, but because the American public, as represented by jurors, is tired of this sort of rampant greed and wants to send a message to the executive class.

Lawrence Friedman's Law in America [randomhouse.com] is a great primer (only 200 pages) on how the American legal system evolved, and how it has shaped and been shaped by American society.

Re:Remember... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170787)

look at Microsoft. half a decade in the courts has not forced a change in Microsoft's business practices

Sure it has. It used to be that Microsoft just strong-armed OEMs and used their size to crush competitors.

Now Microsoft is fair to OEMs and is using Patents and their size to crush compeititors.

Re:Remember... (4, Insightful)

Jameth (664111) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170822)

I think both OJ and Microsoft are great examples of flaws and strengths in the system.

Look at OJ. The system cannot convict when done crappily. Did you ever look at the key points in the trial? The prosecutors SUCKED. It didn't matter that OJ spent a lot of money, his team screwed up tons of times, the prosecutors just screwed up tens times as often. The entire trial was botched in every way, and the result was that he wasn't convicted. In lots of past systems, horrible police-work resulted in people going to prison.

As far as Microsoft, consider whether they truly will last through everything. They've been in the system for eight years or so. Consider that this is a trial dealing with the largest software company in the world, by a fairly long shot. So, the government is careful and slow. Inside of another ten years, it will be resolved.

Yeah, it sucks that Microsoft is around for twenty years too long and OJ got off without prison time, but at least the government can't just walk in and toss someone in jail on shoddy police work or rip apart an organization at a whim.

These are examples of flaws inherent in the system, but not examples of things that should be removed from the system.

That's the trade-off in this sort of a legal system: You have a fair shot in trial and the government cannot just jump all over you, but people get away with things and it is hard to reverse abusive groups.

A better example of something that needs to be fixed and can be fixed is the way the RIAA is acting.

Re:Remember... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9171065)

That's the trade-off in this sort of a legal system: You have a fair shot in trial and the government cannot just jump all over you, but people get away with things and it is hard to reverse abusive groups.

You're assuming you *get* to the trial phase. Bush / Cheney / Ashcroft / Rumsfield would rather label you as a terrorist so they can keep your ass locked up in Guantanamo for 2+ years without pressing charges. If you want to find flaws in the system, you don't have to look much further than the current presidential administration.

P.S. Sorry for sounding partisan, but this is a civil liberties rant, not a Republican / Democrat rant. If Bush happened to be a Democrat, I'd still be jumping on his case.

OJ/PJ difference (4, Insightful)

beacher (82033) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170462)

The OJ case brought us extreme media saturation, and everybody was cognisant of the circumstances and facts around the case. This is different.. computer media shills trumpeted the virtues of SCO's case and the national magazines pickup up the shill's cries and gave them flight.

Well, I am really glad that PJ's work has become pivotal in illuminating the real facts behind SCO's "case". It's an excellent central point of information against SCo's disinformation campaign. Excellent work PJ. Congrats on 1 year ;)

-B

Re:OJ/PJ difference (3, Insightful)

Bartgroks (728664) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170500)

Its been a great year overall. Thanks to groklaw we know SCO's case is much worse then OJ's.

Re:OJ/PJ difference (1)

cujo_1111 (627504) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170665)

The problem with SCO is that the glove actually fits...

...on their head and they look like an Acme rooster :)

Re:Remember... (3, Interesting)

XSforMe (446716) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170879)

For whatever its worth, SCO's Mexico Webpage [sco.com.mx] has been dead since friday (no ping answer). I know, it might be anything, but I still hope I can eventually see the same anwser I get from SCO's Polland exwebpage [www.sco.pl] on the mexican site.

Let me be the first to say... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170429)

I proudly say...

IANAL.

you look like an ANAL to me (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170468)

Actually... (3, Interesting)

elid (672471) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170430)

Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead. I think the truth, as usual, isn't in the headlines, and that it's somewhere in between those two extremes.

"Imminent doom" may be closer to the truth than you think.

Definitely - June 15th... (4, Funny)

cliveholloway (132299) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170807)

According to [amazon.com] anyway :)

cLive ;-)

GrokDoc?? (3, Interesting)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170433)

Any news on how GrokDoc is comming along.. I really like the sound of this project.. :-)

How about a --- (0, Redundant)

after (669640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170448)

How about a WikiWikiGrok?

Let me be the first to say... (4, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170447)

I welcome our new Grocklaw overlo....

Oops.

I mean Happy Birthday Grocklaw.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170871)

In Soviet Russia, SCO sue YOU...oh wait...

GO A HEAD AND MOD ME DOWN.... (1)

Big Troller (651808) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170455)

SCO is dying.....! Surely that has to make some of you happy.... Any how, does SCO have any legit business anymore, or is their karma TERRIBLE like mine is.... Oh shit, I have something in common with SCO... That has to be a bad sign.....

Good to see them in headlines again (4, Interesting)

Noose For A Neck (610324) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170457)

Groklaw are good people. Actually, the place where I work (I work for a large, high-traffic porn site) was recently served with a legal threat in the form of a letter from SCO's lawyers, and we were able to seek legal advice from them and generally keep up with goings-on in the whole ordeal.

I'm glad that I can still use Linux, as it's the best operating system for serving up obscene volumes of multimedia content over the web. If SCO had been able to make good on their threats (and I'm sure now that if it hadn't been for Groklaw, nobody would've ever heard about this), our operating costs would've gone through the roof and we would've ultimately had to shutdown. Cheers, Groklaw! And let us hope you have another 1 year of existence ahead of you!

Re:Good to see them in headlines again (5, Funny)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170464)

Actually, the place where I work (I work for a large, high-traffic porn site) .... I'm glad that I can still use Linux, as it's the best operating system for serving up obscene volumes of multimedia content over the web.

Or volumes of obscene multimedia content over the web.

troll (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170541)

Hmm... you used to be an accounting intern at NASA [slashdot.org] and now you work for a major porn site? Fascinating career.

How is that trolling? (0, Troll)

Noose For A Neck (610324) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170574)

Look, working a varied career is the best thing that's ever happened to me. Variety is the spice of life! I pity someone like you who must have been wrapped up in the same corporate hellhole for the past 20 years. Have fun sucking up to middle management!

Re:How is that trolling? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170655)

True, working for a porn site does not automatically make you a troll... But posting a comment labelled Piss cuntsucker motherfucker [slashdot.org] does.

Great work, Detective Shitbrick! (1)

Noose For A Neck (610324) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170718)

Could you stop stalking me now? Christ, that was posted over a year and a half ago. The last thing I need is some dweeb with a Slashdot subscription following me around online.

Re:Good to see them in headlines again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170740)

"our operating costs would've gone through the roof"

You know, you could have taken the opportunity to lower your operating costs by switching to FreeBSD. :)

Re:Good to see them in headlines again (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170808)

lower your operating costs by switching to FreeBSD

Yes, because autopsies are cheaper than surgery.

Re:Good to see them in headlines again (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170779)

Modded up as "interesting"? Possibly "funny", but only if you like stupid trolls.

Me, I think they should not be encouraged. Haven't you really got ANY better way to spend your mod points?

Re:Good to see them in headlines again (0, Redundant)

tarunthegreat2 (761545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170884)

for serving up obscene volumes of multimedia content
Sorry can't resist, but..shouldn't it be "serving up volumes of obscene media content" in your case? (ducks)

Not to nitpick.... (4, Informative)

redwoodtree (136298) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170459)

....as I know lawyers love to do, but PJ is a grokParaLegal I believe and not a grokLawyer. Regardless, great work and great site.

It must feel really nice to know you are largely responsible for the ongoing education of millions of readers.

She's not a grokParaLegal either ... (4, Funny)

magefile (776388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170490)

She's a GNU/grokParaLegal

(please mod me underrated, not funny ... I'd like some more karma)

Attempted English Lesson (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170673)

Someone who posts on Slashdot is a Slashdotter.
Someone who posts on Fark is a Farker.
Someone who posts on Groklaw is a Groklawer.

Try pronouncing 'Groklawer', or just 'lawer' for that matter. Doesn't work. That's why we say 'lawyer' in English, and that's what makes them a Groklawyer. Nothing to do with lawyers, AFAIK.

Groklaw (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170461)

The mutual admiration society between Slashdot and Groklaw is making me ill. They both deserve each other if you ask me.

effects (3, Insightful)

name773 (696972) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170476)

well, how has the sco ordeal affected linux already?
i think the linux people are more unified, but idk how much it has cut in to dev time...

Re:effects (-1, Offtopic)

E_elven (600520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170501)

I'm going to create a company the secret purpose of which is to unify all people against AOL shorthand. YMMV.

Re:effects (0, Offtopic)

name773 (696972) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170591)

against AOL shorthand
also known as aolbonics

The Year of the SCO Group FUD and Outright Lies (4, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170487)

June 2003 : What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL [slashdot.org] .

December 2003 : The SCO Group cannot expect [slashdot.org] to win any case based upon application interfaces which it's AT&T, USL and Novell predecessors relased in open standards specifically for the purpose of interoperability

March 2004 : How the lawsuit is going to go in court [slashdot.org]

If only... (5, Insightful)

peawee03 (714493) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170492)

... we had GrokLaw for Watergate, Rodney King, Clinton, and OJ, the world would be a much better place. WAIT- no way to get /. "discussions" on Watergate as-it-was-happening. Pity.

You seem to have overlooked Enron and Bush... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170647)

...but I'm sure it was simply an innocent mistake on your part.

Re:You seem to have overlooked Enron and Bush... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170981)

Uh, okay, so mention Clinton-as-criminal and get modded (Score:+5, Elect Him) but mention Bush/Enron and it's Flamebait? My-oh-my, lots of MBAs on /. these days it seems...

Re:If only... (4, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170811)

. . .we had GrokLaw for Watergate, Rodney King, Clinton, and OJ, the world would be a much better place.

I'm not sure how any of these compare. SCO is claiming something that can be largely refuted based on information that's already publically available, albeit in disperse form, across many versions, and fairly large in size. In all of the other cases except King's, the events in question occured relatively in secret. More like if SCO just sued IBM over AIX (but then the Linux community wouldn't give a shit, so what'd be the point of this whole community discovery process?)

You seem to be making the point that a distributed, non-profit, internet based investigation system would be useful more generally for all sorts of civil and criminal cases, but there are almost no cases where there's such a wealth of evidence already available. And keep in mind that our various three-letter agencies are trying to do something similar to uncover terrorist plots, and Slashdotters generally hate some of the methods (i.e. Carnivore, encryption laws) they've applied.

If all of us were doing this collectively out in the open, the potential for invasion of privacy wouldn't be any less and might actually be greater. Take a look at the Powerbook scam article for an example of this; the guy got what he deserved, but isn't it frightening how much the anti-scammers were able to do?

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170911)

That's only because Al Gore wasn't old enough yet...

SCO's Imminent Doom (5, Interesting)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170494)

I wonder what it would take to bring about the demise of SCO. I always assumed that SCO were a company who had turned to litigation because they couldn't sell products. Given that they've started to lay off staff around the world you'd think that their belts must need tightening. Does history have any examples of these things turn out?

Regardless of what you think of the business direction SCO has taken, it must be worrying for the staff who still have families to feed. ATle ast they'll still be able to afford GNU/Linux...

Re:SCO's Imminent Doom (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170559)

Said staff should not be working for a corrupt, dishonest company.

(And yes I practice what I say and I do have a family to support)

Re:SCO's Imminent Doom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170678)

Even though y'all want this over quickly, IBM does not. They are in the process of dismembering SCO in a very slow and exacting manner. Long after SCO UNIX has been sold off, Groklaw will be convering the volleys and counter-volleys as this tedious case winds its way to the foregone conclusion.

I've said it before, but ... (5, Interesting)

krumms (613921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170865)

I always assumed that SCO were a company who had turned to litigation because they couldn't sell products.

Well, that was only the tip of the iceberg.

The rest of it is that BayStar (and others?) delivered a truckload of cash to SCO with a prod in the ribs and a wink.

SCO is evil.
BayStar is more evil, because it funds companies to play the asshole/evil war against the big guns - encouraging companies to take up the rifles of Intellectual Property (and I don't just mean those companies being funded - I mean other companies seeing BayStar make a dollar and wanting to jump on the bandwagon).

This ENCOURAGES shitty patents. The broader the better: the more you can sue.

Linux must have looked like a fucking gold mine to BayStar.

I find the whole idea disturbing. I'm crossing my fingers that before SCO dies, BayStar breathes its last too.

It is normal for a story to turn this way (5, Insightful)

Space_Soldier (628825) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170511)

This is human nature. As much as we like "bad girls" or "bad boys", we always pick the good. In 90% of the stories, the hero (mostly good) wins.

Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170557)

This is human nature. As much as we like "bad girls" or "bad boys", we always pick the good.
Try picking the "bad girl" once in a while, you might get some :)

Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way (1)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170867)

Also...if you want the good girl, get the bad girl first(its often easier).
Its the same theory as Seinfeld's 'Show your papers' episode where George gets girls by carrying a photo of a beautiful, but ficticious girlfriend.
Easy to get a girlfriend when you already have one.

Re:It is normal for a story to turn this way (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170900)

Easiest way to get a girl is by putting a ring on your ring finger.

Just because I like nitpicking ... (4, Insightful)

beanyk (230597) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170546)

Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary!

No, it's Groklaw's first anniversary. The "year" is baked in.

Re:Just because I like nitpicking ... (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170869)

No, it's Groklaw's First Annual One-Year Anniversary 2004!

Re:Just because I like nitpicking ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9171027)

Don't you mean it's Groklaw's inaugural First Annual One-Year Anniversary 2004!

It's more profound than that ... (-1, Troll)

willtsmith (466546) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170564)


It's not SCO that's dying. It's UNIX!!!!!

The father passes his life onto the Son. Unix is dead, long live Linux.

In soviet russia (-1, Offtopic)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170571)

the article makes these stupid soviet russia jokes

post-SCO (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170582)

I wonder what will happen to the patents that SCO allegedly own should they go bust or get bought out.

What, say, if Microsoft were to buy them all, as they seem to be in the habit of doing? I think they would be a SCO worse than SCO.

Re:post-SCO (5, Interesting)

rifftide (679288) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170656)

SCO doesn't have any patents. I think they're asserting rights to code that was added to derivative versions of System V by their licensees. But their story changes every few weeks or so. Re "post-SCO", I'd be interested to see what Groklaw morphs into if and when the SCO case settles down. Maybe they'll perform a similar service (analysis of legal documents and courtroom proceedings) for other IP property disputes with widespread repercussions in the tech industry.

Some are already saying that SCO may be the tip of the iceberg as far as FOSS IP problems are concerned, even as SCO's case seems to be declining. (See the current issue of Fortune magazine, with Darl McBride on the cover, unfortunately not available online except to paid subscribers). Of course, one can argue that proprietary software should be held to same standards, but in practice FOSS is an easier target because the source code can be examined by hungry lawyers and they can always bring up the worldwide, quasi-anonymous nature of development of some projects.

Why is this news? (4, Funny)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170605)

Groklaw [groklaw.net] already broke this story [groklaw.net] hours ago.

Fark and ArsTechnica probably have articles too.

The /. editors are terrible.

</satire>

SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170612)

Groklaw has done a great job in dispelling Darl's FUD. Nobody takes SCO's threats seriously any more. Of course, Cravath and IBM are doing the heavy work, but nobody would notice without Groklaw. It's not at all common for pre-trial motions to be followed this closely.

The remaining question for SCOX [yahoo.com] is "how low can it go"? Except for that bump in early April, when SCO tried, unsuccessfully, a stock buyback to prop up the price, the decline from 14 to 5 has been close to linear. If you just project the line out, SCOX goes to zero around late summer. It probably won't go to penny stock levels for a while, though; they have some cash left. But with no licensing revenue and a huge legal burn rate, they can't go on for all that long.

The real question at this point, and it's one the players in the Open Source industry need to think about, is, who ends up with the rights to UNIX when SCO is gone? Sun? IBM? Red Hat? Boies?

It's sad, in a way, to realize that the best thing the original UNIX can do is go away.

Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (1)

Mad Marlin (96929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170652)

The real question at this point, and it's one the players in the Open Source industry need to think about, is, who ends up with the rights to UNIX when SCO is gone? Sun? IBM? Red Hat? Boies?

Probably whoever ponies up enough money to buy what is left of SCO at the end of all of this. That might actually have some real value, and therefore SCO stock might actually not be worthless.

Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (5, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170772)

When you buy a company, you aquire its assets and its debts and liabilities. Buying them out before all the legal battles are over would be foolish, and afterwards I doubt that there will be much left.

Wouldn't it make a nice picture with IBM and other claimants around the table carving the turkey on Thanksgiving? (Too bad it won't happen that soon unless SCO runs out of legal money.)

Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170916)

SCO bought UNIXWare and the System V Agency from Novell, they certainly can sell it to someone (with Novell's approval).

There's still millions of deployed SCO UNIX boxes out there (in every McDonalds and many other major retail chains), the product is worth something to somebody.

My guess is that System V licencing goes back to Novell (they get 95% gross anyway), and UNIXWare & OpenServer go to Computer Associates or some other graveyard.

LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (2, Funny)

Mike Hawk (687615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170679)

The remaining question for LNUX [yahoo.com] is "how low can it go"? If you just project the line out, LNUX goes to zero around late summer.

It's sad, in a way, to realize that the best thing slashdot can do is go away.

Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170721)

Holy cow. Just... holy cow.

Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (2, Flamebait)

Mike Hawk (687615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170773)

Aww, boohoo. Its flamebait when the exact same evidence the grandparent used against SCO is turned against slashdot via OSDN and VA Software? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander kids. I thought /. was about the free exchange of ideas. Whoever modded that as flamebait should have their moderation priviledge revoked as a blatant abuser. My post contained nothing but facts, and the same facts that got the grandparent post modded +5. Thus proving once again, this website is full of shit and is truly as doomed to fail as SCO. I was modded not for being wrong, but for being so Right that it hurt.

Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (2, Insightful)

Jameth (664111) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170842)

The difference is that the example marked flamebait started ridiculously high, immediately dropped, and then stayed level. The only reason it looks bad is that it was shown on a four-year graph and VA Software was originally wildly overrated.

Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170922)

A while back, LNUX was at ~.90 and about to be delisted, now they are twice that. For whatever reason, Slashdot has proven to be a viable business.

Re:LNUX at $1.94 - Where's the bottom? (1)

JamesKPolk (13313) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170953)

Well, that's what VA gets for changing their names and business models repeatedly. I wouldn't put a dime into either company, SCO or VA. Neither seems to have any viable path or plan.

Who will own Unix? (2, Interesting)

donnz (135658) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170751)

I'm betting on Microsoft, maybe through Baystar but most likely directly.

Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (4, Insightful)

badasscat (563442) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170863)

The remaining question for SCOX is "how low can it go"? Except for that bump in early April, when SCO tried, unsuccessfully, a stock buyback to prop up the price, the decline from 14 to 5 has been close to linear. If you just project the line out, SCOX goes to zero around late summer. It probably won't go to penny stock levels for a while, though; they have some cash left. But with no licensing revenue and a huge legal burn rate, they can't go on for all that long.

I need to at least try to correct this misconception a lot of people seem to have that a company's stock price is directly tied to its very existence. It isn't. In fact, as far as the company is concerned, it doesn't even really matter. If a company is dipping into its market cap to finance anything, it's in serious trouble to begin with - which SCO is, but not because its stock price is going down. SCO is in serious trouble because its business is failing, and its stock price is reflecting that. The cause/effect is reversed, you see.

If SCO's stock reaches penny-stock levels, they'll be de-listed. It happens occasionally, and a lot of companies are not even big enough to be listed to begin with. But they're still in business. And it won't affect their legal strategy, because they've got cash set aside for that.

I'm just saying, quit harping on the stock price. It doesn't matter except as a reflection of what a very small pool of not-very-influential people (ie. mostly small investors) think about SCO's future business prospects. It's no secret that their Unix business isn't doing well, they gave up on Linux and their legal strategy is working about as well as their FUD. Plus, BayStar and RBC want out. Add it up and obviously investors want out. But this has no direct effect on SCO's business.

SCO doesn't automatically go away if their stock drops to penny levels. They've got their cash, and if they burn through it, they'll just need to find some other sucke... er, VC firm to prop them up like BayStar and RBC did. You know MS is not going to let this die; they'll find some other proxy with which to funnel SCO whatever cash they need.

Re:SCOX at $5.15 - Where's the bottom (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170996)

SCO doesn't automatically go away if their stock drops to penny levels.

True. But SCOX went from nowhere to 22, and then back down to nowhere, all on hype. That's a classic speculative bubble. Live by the momentum, die by the momentum. It's not like their revenue numbers are any good, except for that cash infusion from Microsoft.

not accessible from China? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170636)

It seems like groklaw is not accessible from China - or perhaps it is just from my location.

Anyone else in China able to get to it?

Why would it be inaccessible, I wonder?

Re:not accessible from China? (3, Insightful)

andfarm (534655) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170976)

If this inaccessibility is indeed China-specific, it's probably because Groklaw deals with US laws. Democracy and all that - can't possibly let any of that come through the Great Firewall.

Re:not accessible from China? (4, Interesting)

dukeisgod (739214) | more than 10 years ago | (#9171031)

I'm amazed that you're allowed to read /. from China.

Re:not accessible from China? (4, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 10 years ago | (#9171075)

atomintersoft.com and choose a proxy. Or get a friend using circumventor from peacefire.org

l;aksjfdvasdNJ:ho (1)

darlmcbride666 (777465) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170687)

la;kjhda;lgjhdvf;lskagrwlkgal;sljkdfasdfgaws

Too much time on their hands (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170710)

These people really need to get a hobby. A serious one. Something that actually matters to people who aren't geeks...

15 Minutes Over in 3...2...1 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9170763)

First, let me start with congratulating PJ + the rest for the fine work on this SCO thing.

That being said, Groklaw is pretty much headed for self-destruction and irrelevancy.

The constituency over there is a mainly a strange new breed of Linux Zealot that has very little IT experience. That makes them even more mouth-foaming than your Slashdot Linux Zealot, who at least has some sense of perspective on real world systems. (I recall the story about the MS SFU download -- slashbots were like "NFS for Windows? Cool!" Growlawers were fiercy frothing flamebait.)

Next, PJ is basically a Board Nazi, and she doesn't know it. Her definition of a "troll" is someone who expresses an opinion that she disagrees with, while any sort of juvenile "Darl is a goatfucker' comments are allowed. This leads to illogical and capricious post deleting sprees, often taking some interesting discussion along with it. PJ doesn't seem to have a lot of experience in the 'online community' thing, so she's unaware that her behavior is going to cause a backlash and it's going to hit hard.

Then you have that whole "FUD insurance" thing that she's involved in which at worst frankly smells like a scam, and at best is just a FUD broadcasting mechinism.

Basically Groklaw has only worked so well because (1) SCO/Darl are so ridiculously wrong and have no case, and (2) Everyone in the Linux world is unified against SCO.

Once you take those constraints away, there's not much left but some opinionated people. As soon as they get into flamey territory, and the post deleting starts, the place is going to explode.

Because I've seen it with all threads this weekend (-1, Offtopic)

richdun (672214) | more than 10 years ago | (#9170935)

In Soviet Russia, Law Groks You!
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>