Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

DaimlerChrysler/SCO Case Winds Down

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the running-on-empty dept.

Caldera 317

kuwan writes "It was previously reported that SCO moved for and was denied a stay in their case agains DaimlerChrysler. (Remember that all of SCO's claims against DaimlerChrysler were thrown out except for the issue of whether or not DaimlerChrysler made its certification in a timely manner.) The opposition and reply memos for that motion are now available and apparently SCO's motion was so weak that DaimlerChrysler is asking SCO to pay the cost of preparing their opposition memo. A nice summary of the latest maneuvers is available at scofacts.org."

cancel ×

317 comments

Fall of SCO (3, Interesting)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000862)

Any idea when SCO will finally die?

Re:Fall of SCO (1)

storm916 (833387) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000868)

Soon, I Hope.

Re:Fall of SCO (1)

island_tux (803586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000879)

Ass holes like these would be shot in my country on general principle !!

Re:Fall of SCO (5, Funny)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000888)

Well, there's been no confirmation from Netcraft yet...

Re:Fall of SCO (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001335)

But you can definitely write it on a wall ;-)

* bzzzzzz... *
SCO faces a bleak future blah blah blah
* zzzzt... *

Re:Fall of SCO (3, Interesting)

tdvaughan (582870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000912)

They're probably going to end up wholly owned by Boies and Schiller at this rate. It's sad in a way. Then IBM can pick over what's left and GPL Unix once and for all.

Re:Fall of SCO (3, Insightful)

multipart (732754) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000986)

IBM has no interest in putting UNIX under the GPL. They still have Dynix and AIX, remember? Just because they hopped onto the Linux boat doesn't mean they've abandoned their proprierty software base.

Re:Fall of SCO (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001639)

> Then IBM can pick over what's left and GPL Unix once and for all.

Fans of the GPL we may be, but I still think BSD would be more appropriate in this case.

Re:Fall of SCO (1)

Upphew (676261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000917)

Evil never dies...

Re:Fall of SCO (3, Funny)

w4rl5ck (531459) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000940)

> Evil never dies... Evil comes down onto itself... ;)

Re:Fall of SCO (4, Funny)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000999)

How do you define "death" of an undead, ie. zombie?

If you mean "when they will stop moaning and disturbing the living ones" - well, that's a question for an Exorcist, not a geek.

Re:Fall of SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001232)

\/4|)3 5474|\|45!

Re:Fall of SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001027)

SCO has one foot in the grave and the other on a bananna peal, it wont be long now...

Re:Fall of SCO (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001318)

"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

Wow (1, Offtopic)

Troll-a-holic (823973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000863)

Legal battles, fucked up politicians and an ever receding economy. I thought we Europeans were bad, the US makes us look good.

Man!

The US is so fucked up - I just see Google News [google.de] and the top international stories literally speak volumes.

On one hand, Bush is supporting Pakistan and on the other hand, Putin wants better economic ties with India. Are you people so fucked up that your president cannot even choose clearly between a democratic country and an Islamic fundamentalist nation ruled by a military dictator?

Wow, I'm amazed and amused.

The land of the free, home of the brave indeed. Retards.

Re:Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000875)

talking about how bad the US sucks.. the link you provided is to the GERMAN version of google's news. *sigh* your flamebait is rather annoying. Looking through your slashdot profile, i can see many many -1 trolls and -1 offtopics. maybe i'm looking too far into this and you really are just retarded.

Re:Wow (1, Offtopic)

Troll-a-holic (823973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000891)

My bad, I'm from Germany. However, look at the International Edition [google.com] and you'd see what I mean.


  1. Bush Lauds the Efforts of Pakistani Ally
  2. Bush Mum on Pakistan's Hunt for Bin Laden
  3. Bin Laden eludes Pakistani hunters
  4. Trail of al-Qaeda fades away


And look at the other side of the story -


  1. Putin wants new business partnership with India
  2. Putin keeps IT-date with Infosys
  3. Putin to push Indo-Russia economic ties
  4. Putin for India getting veto power


See the differences - on one hand, Bush is up in arms about Bin Laden and pursuing goody relatins with a country that is an Islamic nation with a military dictator, while Putin is discussing economic ties and helping India join the UN and visiting IT companies.

Doesn't that in itself say a lot?

Quite honestly, I'm amazed - you ought to be encouraging third world countries to come out and grow economically, like India is - it is a democracy and is doing quite well. But instead, the fact that the US is encouraging countries like Pakistan is quite surprising.

Look at your allies - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel...

Be warned, even Rome fell.

Re:Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000892)

The retarded german troll has a point though...

Re:Wow (-1, Offtopic)

dipipanone (570849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000898)

That's a perfect cue for that predictable boneheaded poster to chime in about how we'd *all* be speaking German over here if it wasn't for your brave GI's [thezreview.co.uk] back in WWII.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000920)

I speak German, you insensitive clod!

Well... (-1, Offtopic)

tjstork (137384) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000926)

Just imagine if the entire British Empire had been handed over to the Germans. You would have had the Nazis in control of Canada, the Middle East, India, Australia, large portions of Africa....

Re:Wow (0, Offtopic)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000934)


Annalen Der Physik [wiley-vch.de] would still have been numero Uno in Physics.

Have fun and amaze your friends! (3, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000975)

Now -- for a limited time only-- you can use the Nationalistic Moron's Assertion About The Probability Of Other Nation's Linguistic Evolution to justify ~any~ war... while insulting other nations in your favourite, chasm-spanningly idiotic manner!

"You would all be speaking Farsi and Arabic if not for our brave GIs!"

"You would all be speaking Afghani if not for our brave... I mean, if not for the Pakistan Army!"

"You would all be speaking South American and wearing funny hats like Che Guevara if not for the covert operations of our brave CIA agents!"

And many, many more! Call this number now and have your debt account number ready!

Re:Wow (1, Insightful)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000939)

Dear Anonymous moron

You forget that /. is site with mostly American readers and moderators. Every time someone writes something "ontopic" that isn't pleasant for Americans and doesn't agree with their American point of view, he gets modded down as "offtopic", "redundant" or even "troll" or "flamebait".

Why argue your point of view, when you can make the opposite point disappear?

Robert

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000946)

Mod this comment down!

It seems to be un-American.

Re:Wow (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000958)


Just out of curiosity - what language is your website in, btw?

I'm guessing it's some Scandinavian language?

Re:Wow (1)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000969)

Just out of curiosity - what language is your website in, btw? I'm guessing it's some Scandinavian language?

Not really, it's Slavic language [wikipedia.org] : Polish.

Robert

Re:Wow (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000979)

Ah, my bad. In hindsight, I was debating whether to say Scandinavian or East-European (although am not certain if Slavic is primarily East-European or not).

Thanks! :)

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001075)

although am not certain if Slavic is primarily East-European or not

It depends. Some people from Poland, Czech, or post-yugoslavian countries might disagree and punch you in the face ;)

Thing is, the term "Slavic" crosses the boundary of what was always considered Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Traditionally, before 20th century, East Europe was synonymous with Orthodox Church (Pravoswavny as some Slavs would say), Greek/Byzantium culture, and cyryllic writing. Catholic/Protestant Slavic countries with latin writing were considered Central Europe, identifying rather with Western Europe. Balkan Slavic nations considered themselves primarily Central/Southern Europe.

After WW2 every Russian vasal country in Europe was considered Eastern Europe, even Russian ocupied part of Germany.

Most of Slavic people today would like to regain their pre-soviet culture, including their place on geopolitical map of Europe. Hence most of Western Slavs consider themselves Central/Western Europe, Southern Slavs -- Central/Southern Europe and Eastern Slavs -- Eastern Europe (even those living in North-Eastern Asia ;)).

Robert

PS Western/Southern/Eastern Slavs are quite strict, scientific terms; just look at the map [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000994)

Just look at how much this and the original post have been modded up and down. Sheesh!!!

Now *that* speaks volumes of USians.

Re:Wow (1)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001304)

You don't know half of it, I think it already has +4/-4 moderation. Perhaps I'm gonna post detailed stats when I'll get them tomorrow ;)

Robert

Re:Wow (0, Offtopic)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001025)

Every time someone writes something "ontopic" that isn't pleasant for Americans and doesn't agree with their American point of view, he gets modded down as "offtopic", "redundant" or even "troll" or "flamebait".

Does anyone else see the irony that this was modded "offtopic"?

Watch this post get modded right down as well.

for USAsian crusaders every dissident is a heretic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001055)

USAsian "freedom" of speech in action. Fortunately, I live in a country that has not (yet) been "liberated".

Re:for USAsian crusaders every dissident is a here (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001129)

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The USians are coming. To "liberate" you.

Does your country have Oil? If not, it probably has Bin Laden? No? That's alright, I'm sure they'd find some reason or the other to invade you.

You think they respect your sovereign rights? You think they care? Nope.

While dictators are ruling countries like North Korea and Pakistan, they are more concerned about Iraq - the people need to be liberated, you know? The oil, most importantly.

So that the USians can sit in their homes with their gas guzzling SUVs and eat fries and watch their reality shows. And ofcourse, complain about outsourcing and how their rights are being "trampled" while they vote in the same guy who took those rights away in the first place.

A bunch of fucking hypocrites. That is what they are.

Look at the US. They do not respect other nations sovereign rights. Their allies are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and the like. They subsidize China and overlook Chinese human right abuses. They do not even care enough about the environment to ratify the Kyoto. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.

And *YET* the moment you bring this up, some USian will come up and pretend that they care.

Do not bother. They are too high up in their "religious" and "moral" highground to care about the world. They like policing the world and are too used to the comforts of their MacDonalds and their SUVs.

In a nation that prides itself of liberty and values, they have not even elected a non-white non-Christian non-Catholic non-male President. Ever. So much for their "values".

Get over it, USians do not care. Vietnam happened once and you think their people would learn. But Iraq is happening again. Look at the atrocities in Abu Gharib and what not. Look at the way they treat their prisoners in Guatanomo Bay. They trained the Taliban to fight the Soviets. They pul Ayotallah in Iran. They put put people like Pinochet into power who killed tens of thousands. Their Prince^W President is the "friend" of the Saudi Royal family. They preach values? Get over this - America and Americans have no values.

They pretend and they pretend well. They're all just a bunch of hypocrites. Notice how much the people whine all over the place, but yet none of their policies change.

Take the topic under discussion - India is a peaceful democracy with a flourishing economy and Pakistan is an Islamic military dictatorship, and yet the USA does not want India to be elected to the UN - why? So that Pakistan is appeased.

Do not bother, America and Americans do not care. They are too used to their comforts and their hypocrisy runs so deep that the rest of the world is quite disgusted. Their civil liberties are being trampled, they're fucking over the rest of the world and pissing off a lot of people.

Remembe - even Rome fell.

Re:for USAsian crusaders every dissident is a here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001168)

Let's not forget the never ending attempts by midle-aged white men to send womens right back to the stone age by making abortion illegal. Next up they'll be overturning the right to vote or own property.

Re:for USAsian crusaders every dissident is a here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001201)

Oh yeah. They're "Christian" you know. Although they claim to be "secular" (wonder how many USians know that word, probably not a very "moral" word for them).

If you notice, the US has been responsible for so many of the world's problems.

One other thing is that all their actions are such that no other country can rise in power.

Is any South American country coming up? Let's put a military dictator! The Russians? Let's fuck them over. And oh wait, the Middle East? Let's pillage them for the oil and install fundamentalist dictatorships and priests so that they never develop enough. India is coming up? Oh no, they'd be a powerful country. That cannot be allowed, so let's put them down and drive them back to stone-ages.

What are those brown-skinned funny speaking people doing trying to play with the USA anyway? They're taking away USian *jobs*!

Control those you can, suppress and destroy those you can't.

They're going right back to stone-age. They're a war economy. Ever since WW2. Cold War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, War on Terror, War on Iraq ad infinitum.

I'm scared for this world. More than a fundamentalist blowing up this world, it's far more likely that the US would blow up this world. When big egoist powers fall, they tend to take everything along with them.

Re:for USAsian crusaders every dissident is a here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001261)

I think it goes without saying that you're an ass, but I'll say it anyway. Twice, if you count the last sentence. You're an ass.

Re:for USAsian crusaders every dissident is a here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001268)


Why don't you counter his arguments if you disagree with him?

Although a little harsh, I think he's raised a lot of valid points.

But no, you would just abuse those who disagree with you.

Typical American attitude.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

catenos (36989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001131)

Does anyone else see the irony that this was modded "offtopic"?

No. "Irony" implies that something different than the expected result happened. I can see nothing unexpected in either
- a meta-discussion being considered off-topic,
- an off-topic post mentioning the word off-topic itself,
- such a post being modded off-topic,
- ./ mods moderating an on-topic post as off-topic*
- even if such a post complains about exactly this (this is ./, remember?),
- a post (indirectly) forseeing its moderation getting modded real high or real low,
- and so on.

Regardless how you spin it, there isn't much irony in how it got modded, especially considering this is Slashdot.


*I don't consider this thread to be on-topic (as its meta-discussion started with a troll), but let's be open-minded for a moment.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

mrisaacs (59875) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001195)

It's not a question of the political comment or the nationality of the /.ers. The current topic is Daimler Chrysler, SCO and the lawsuit.

American poitics, the general intelligence of Americans, idiotic foriegn policies and the tribulations of having to live with Bush are off the topic.

Want to discuss those topics? Submit an article to /.

Nice advert (3, Funny)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000867)

Methinks that the Sybase "one-eyed monster whacking a luser" advert was a perfect fit for this article.

Dunno if it is luck or the usual Slashdot editor impartial and unbiased reporting :-)

Hopefully a few more whacks and it will be gone for good.

Re:Nice advert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000916)

I wouldn't know, I have blocked all of the huge flashing ads on Slashdot.

I look forward to the day when they change over to something non-offensive like google text ads (ESPECIALLY for the lightweight version - what good is it on mobile devices when it has a f*ng flash ad 200x the size of the page in it???) and it is no longer necessary to do so, but in the mean time they get no ad revenue from me.

Re:Nice advert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001107)

In Soviet Russia, one-eyed monster whacks YOU!

SCO Must Die! (3, Funny)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000880)

Way to go! Make SCO pay for everything. Suck up all their blood money and drive them out of business.

Would be nice... (1, Troll)

doi (584455) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000886)

...if Slashdot fixed the links to their own stories.

Re:Would be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001052)

How is this a troll? The link really doesn't work :P

Working link (1)

kuwan (443684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001608)

Here's a (hopefully) working link:

SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out [slashdot.org]

I'm not sure why the one in the article I submitted didn't work as it's the same one I'm posting here.

DaimlerChrysler's Certification (1)

abdulla (523920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000890)

Does that mean they actually bought some sort of UNIX license off SCO or does that mean something altogether unrelated?

Re:DaimlerChrysler's Certification (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000933)

They were an old UNIX licensee from the AT&T days - one of thousands. A while back SCO sent requests to all of those ancient licensees requesting that they certify that they're only using the code in a proper way (and implying that using linux might be in violation; probably an attempt to drum up business for their lawsuit protection racket) Of course the license are for really old versions of UNIX so the question is pretty silly (it'd be like Microsoft suddenly doing a license audit of all Windows 3.0 customers) so almost noone bothered to actually reply.

DCC was one of the thousands that didn't reply. For whatever reason SCO decided to sue them as an example or something. DC basically replied with "We haven't used the software we licensed from AT&T for over seven years; there we've certified now go away" A judge ruled that this was a valid certification and threw 99% of the case away. They left SCO the option to continue the case soley on the basis of whether DC certified promptly enough (the contract between AT&T and DC didn't mention a deadline for this certification)

Amazingly SCO decided to continue the case in that vein -- probably so they don't have to admit defeat quite yet. Of course now they're trying to put the case so far on the back burner that it will never actually go to trial. DC is fighting that and trying to get SCO to go to trial now.

Re:DaimlerChrysler's Certification (4, Informative)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001149)

Don't forget the fact that SCO's letter to Chrysler was peppered with questions that were unrelated to the contract terms. Those questions involved detailing Chrysler's use of Linux to replace SCO's antiquated software, questions which have no relationship to the terms of the original Software License, and to which SCO had no right to even expect answers.

Again, this case was mostly about the hare-brained scheme that McBride and his cronies cooked up. Having been a litigious bastard in his own right, McBride thought that as soon as he started throwing the word "lawsuit" around, everyone subject to the threat would simply crumple up and pay SCO rather than fight back, and that other UNIX/Linux users would see this and pile on for the SCOSource licenses, thus leading to the huge pump on the stock price in anticipation of this seeming windfall.

Personally, I think McBride should turn back to his bag o' blow.

Re:DaimlerChrysler's Certification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000944)

SCO's predecessor sold UNIX to Chrylser and they stopped using it over seven years ago. SCO's "demand for certification" letter regarding the use of the software was sent to the wrong address, and from a company that DaimlerChrysler had never done business with. The only remaining claim that SCO has is regarding whether or not DaimlerChrysler responded in a timely manner to SCO's certification request. Since it appears that they didn't even know of the request until they were sued (SCO didn't even follow up with a phone call), and they haven't used the software for years, I'm guessing that the only "damages" that can be claimed would be for the costs of responding to a frivolous lawsuit.

Re:DaimlerChrysler's Certification (2, Informative)

qcomp (694740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000951)

DaimlerChrysler certified (as requested by SCO) that they were in compliance with the Licence Agreement under which they had been using some Unix (bought from a SCO predecessor). (They also certified, that they had stopped using SCO-Unix long ago).

This is unrelated to the "Linux-IP" licence that SCO tries people to threaten into buying.

Raise Money for SCO (4, Funny)

Phragmen-Lindelof (246056) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000900)

I can think of one reason SCO deserves some money from us; they are providing us with a lot of entertainment and they are illustrating how not to conduct legal affairs. I believe that we should all contribute to a pool to improve the lives of (former) SCO (related) employees who are (or will be) housed in our wonderful incarceration facilities. This may need to be a large fund since I suspect that some Canapy Group employees might need some free government lodging. I think we should put PJ in charge of distributing the money; imagine Darl asking PJ for just a little money for a snickers bar.

Re:Raise Money for SCO (1)

Phragmen-Lindelof (246056) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000909)

Just for clarification of the one reason, I consider their legal campaign to be a part of their entertainment value. One might also include their demand for $699, PR campaign, etc. as additional entertainment value.

Re:Raise Money for SCO (3, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001341)

Was that Canopy Group or Canopic Group [echo-on.net] ? A group that keeps dead people's organs in jars seems to fit better. Speaking of entertainment value, if Darl could just fill out this special organ donour card...

("We're here for your liver.")

From back in June 2003 and Beyond competence (4, Interesting)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000905)

In reply to 9th June posting SCO Shows 80 Lines of Evidence [slashdot.org] , I posted an outline of the issues the SCO Group had to overcome before even beginning to go after other Linux distributions, developers and users [slashdot.org] .

Every point I made back then has since played out in court as predicted. Even the SCO Group is now relying on the same interpretation of the GPL license in its defence against IBM [groklaw.net] .

As I stated on March 10, 2004 [blogspot.com] :

The SCO Group has entered into a series of essentially inherently flawed lawsuits and fraudulent license claims against users of the Linux operating system. Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa Cruz Operation have been accepting, profiting from and distributing software developed by hundreds of independent developers under the terms of the GPL and LGPL license. The SCO Group has failed to put forward any sustainable legal theory why it should not abide by the terms of the GPL license. Detailed investigation into other facts and evidence which regularly conflict with the SCO Group's various legal claims, filing, press and public statements, raises serous questions which can no longer be explained away by a lack of competence in either the SCO Group's CEOs or the SCO Group's legal representation.

Re:From back in June 2003 and Beyond competence (5, Funny)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000985)

I'd give you a pat on the back, but your hand is in the way :-)

Re:From back in June 2003 and Beyond competence (2, Funny)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001036)

The hand is only there to protect it from the knives ;-).

I read the headline as... (1)

RichDice (7079) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000914)

"Daimler/Chrysler wins SCO Case Hands Down"

Maybe we'll be so lucky. :-)

Cheers,
Richard

Re:I read the headline as... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001160)

Trust me, it will. I can predict how it's going to go:

Chysler attorney: Your honor, they sent the letter to our old corporate headquarters address, which is now a vacant field in Highland Park between I-75 and Highland Avenue. We never received it. In fact, we didn't know if its existence until they filed suit.

Judge: Decision in favor of plantiff, case summarily dismissed with prejudice. Next case.

guilty condcience? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11000922)

In a weird sort of way, I kind of feel sorry for SCO.

I mean geez, they're just another legit company trying to make it in this high tech industry. Won't anyone give them a break?

Re:guilty condcience? (1)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000963)

"Won't anyone give them a break"

I hope you meant this to be funny.
SCO-X (Caldera) is not the old SCO.
SCO-X knows there is not any truth at all to their claims.
The reason SCO-X is after Linux is funding by Microsoft.
The SCO-X execs always schedule their "insider planned stock sales" after a news conference (pump and dump)
Most of the SCO-X gang have been involved in multiple fraud scams in the past.

Re:guilty condcience? (3, Funny)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001030)

Won't anyone give them a break?

No.

Re:guilty condcience? (1)

ninthwave (150430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001093)

The were a legit company, they have changed their culture and like the culture in the petri dish it is starting to smell.

Re:guilty condcience? (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001387)

Won't anyone give them a break?

Funny you should say that as IBM have a team committed to breaking them.

Re:guilty condcience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001593)

The SCO Group is dying.

It is official; NASDAQ confirms: the SCO Group (SCOX) is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO Group when NASDAQ confirmed that SCOX's market price has dropped yet again, now down to less than a quarter of its trading price a year ago. One court ruling after another has pummeled the once mighty corporation.

Coming on the heels of a recent NASDAQ report which plainly states that SCOX has lost more market capitilization, the market serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO Group is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by being dead last in a recent NASDAQ Losers list.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO Group faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share.

Red ink flows like a river of blood.

UnixWare is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core users. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time SCO Group CEO Daryl McBride and Chris Sontag, the SCO vice presi dent only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO Group is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Window's leader Bill Gates states that there are 70 users of Linux. How many users of UnixWare ar
e there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in a ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there must be about 70 * 5 = 350 UnixWare users.

Due to the troubles of the Lindon, Utah company, abysmal sales and so on, the SCO Group may go out of business and be taken over by Microsoft, who sells another troubled OS. Now that UnixWare is also dead, its corpse is to be turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that SCO Group has steadily declined in market share. SCO Group is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If UnixWare is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. UnixWare continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, UnixWare is dead.

Fact: the SCO Group is dying.

Re:guilty condcience? (3, Funny)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001637)

Won't anyone give them a break?

My pleasure. Arm or Leg?

#1 sign your business is in trouble: (5, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000928)

It is actually profitable to be sued by you.

Re:#1 sign your business is in trouble: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001198)

In Soviet Russia, old people eat hot grits, while SCO news reads you.

Did I get them all?

This is a non-story (0, Flamebait)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11000945)

... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.

Lawywers always ask for fees, if they think they are going to win or not. It has little to do with the strength of their case.

Daimler is not the most aggressive of the SCO Group defendants. They are the ones for whom The SCO Group's case was obviously the weakest on its face, allowing the judge to rule quickly and without waiting for the others.

Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual.

Re:This is a non-story (0)

multipart (732754) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001006)

At least he has the documents. I couldn't find those on Groklaw.

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001453)

And SCO owns all source code for every operating system ever written, just ask them.

Where are the documents on the "million line of code" that was improperly used? "I haven't found that document."

C/PM will rise again

Al's Biasment (1)

Slavinski (713970) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001011)


He admits on the front page that he has several thousand
shares and that he hopes to mitigate the low value perception of
SCOs business. Although PJ's pages are biased to some degree,
it is in regards to one major fact: the whole suit has no base.

He attempts to post the facts but it entirely based on his research
and blogging. I have no problem with that but the eyes of many
catches a lot which I happen to enjoy at Groklaw.

The trouble with Groklaw. (2, Informative)

raidient (751898) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001533)

"I have no problem with that but the eyes of many
catches a lot which I happen to enjoy at Groklaw."

It is not the eyes of the posters on Groklaw that I have a problem with. I am a long time lurker*, but since Pam started deleting the accounts of people she could no longer put up with, it seems that she has only 'yes' men left. There is very little useful input from named posters. Most of the enlightened stuff comes from "Anonymous". Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

* I lurk there as I have nothing useful to add to the discussions. Yes, I know that does not stop most posters there, but it does stop me.

IANAL

What a troll! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001601)

it seems that she has only 'yes' men left.

Well that explains all of the significant discussions that go on with a wide variety of opinions.

There is very little useful input from named posters.

A lie easily disproven by looking at Groklaw, oh, say, any day of the week and any time of the day.

Most of the enlightened stuff comes from "Anonymous".

Precisely the opposite of reality.

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001035)

... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.

Ah, thanks for you keen insight. You've certainly proved to me that Al is a luser, and I will no longer read anything he has to say.

Everyone, please disregard this story and move on to the next. Mr. Heal has spoken.

Considering PJ's moderation policy... (0, Flamebait)

tsqr (808554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001058)

...being considered a troll on Groklaw is more a badge of honor than an insult these days.

Re:This is a non-story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001061)

>... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.

bollocks ! Al is very much respected by most of the original Groklaw readers (myself included). All that happened is that PJ didn't agree with Al on some issues and was thrown out.

If you go to http://www.ip-wars.net/ or the Yahoo SCOX message-board you find most of the original readers who found PJ's ways not to their liking.. (The Moderation/Comment Deletion events)

(Posting anonymously as I don't want my groklaw account deleting when PJ see's this ! Not that I post there anymore.)

Re:This is a non-story (0, Troll)

div_2n (525075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001336)

This is a tired old argument drummed up by people that don't like it when their comments get deleted on a website belonging to someone else and their comments violate the rules by the operator and is being perpetuated potentially by SCO shills. There's a shocker.

The sooner people realize it is HER website and she can delete comments as she sees fit even if they don't violate her terms, the sooner people can move on.

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001467)

Oh deleted would be fine, try having all your comments kept there and attributed to Anonymous.

No one questions PJ's right to moderate GrokLaw as she sees fit as long as she does so within copyright law.

Has she? (IANAL) but if you read the CCL, The Berne Convention and the DMCA removing CMI (Copyright Management Information) from someone's posts does not appear wise.

Blaming SCO or "SCO Shills" for this is just a lame excuse for a poor moderator.

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001625)

You have a lot to learn about copyright law. Take those arguments to court and get laughed right out of it. I trust PJ's understanding of the law (it's her job), more than the anti-Groklaw crowd.

Furthermore, the attribution issue is a software bug, not something PJ did, as has been repeatedly explained.

Re:This is a non-story (1)

raidient (751898) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001598)

"even if they don't violate her terms"

Well that is an open way to carry on.
If she was honest about it and said that it just did not suit her agenda to have intelligent, and active people posting to her site then I would have no problem with it. However her continued attempts to claim the moral high ground, and enflame her captive audience is a mockery of what she claimed the site stood for.

Her actions with regard to other people's copyrights if not illegal (she claims it is OK to take someones name off of their posts and substitute "Anonymous"), is certainly, in my view, unethical.

IANAL

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001599)

div_2n: "The sooner people realize it is HER website and she can delete comments as she sees fit even if they don't violate her terms, the sooner people can move on."

Time SHE made it clear that it is a private site and stopped the hideous pretensions to being some kind of community resource or having community standing.

Napoleon Reddress

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001613)

She repeatedly makes that clear. It's her site and she says so all the time.

PJ is a censorer. (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001619)

It's not a matter of whether PJ has the legal right to delete the posts she doesn't like. It's matter of groklaw being unfair and biased to the point of being worthless.

PJ doesn't just delete trolls, obscene posts, and posts that are intended to insult. PJ will delete anything that doesn't suck-up to the groklaw party line.

On groklaw, there is no real discussion. It's a big circle-jerk. And it's too bad, because groklaw used to be a really great site.

Re:This is a non-story (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001067)

Dude, 99.99999994% percent of the whole population is considered a troll on groklaw. If this defines credibility, all we are left with is PJ and a couple of paranoid, pussy whipped, virgin geeks.

As I watched groklaw grow, I thought "man, this woman has no clue about open source", but now that it has devolved into mindless sycophantic cult worship, infighting, backstabbing and replacing emotion for rational discourse, I thought "she finally gets it."

Good luck with all that.

Re:This is a non-story (1, Insightful)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001165)

Ho hum! If you look at the IP-Wars.net article (linked to in the main /. article), you will see that Al Petrofsky mentions his site at scofacts.org.

If you look at the Groklaw.net article (linked to in the main /. article), you will see (on the first line) it links to a PDF at ... scofacts.org!

Al Petrofsky might be considered a troll on Groklaw, but this doesn't stop Groklaw from using his material.

And this doesn't matter. Why ... because, in reality, we are all on the same side!

Hope this helps

Sesostris III

Re:This is a non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001425)

Being considered a troll on GrokLaw hardly diminishes the contribution Al and http://scofacts.org/ [scofacts.org] have made to the fight against SCO.

I suspect if this story had shown up on GrokLaw you would have been praising it. Time to take those PJ blinders off.

Al's work is valuable (1)

kuwan (443684) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001459)

... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.

How does this have anything to do with the facts that were presented? Regardless of what Al's status is on Groklaw, he is the one that actually did the work to get the copies of the Opposition and Reply memos so that we could be discussing them here. He should get credit for that and the other work that he's done. Groklaw even links to his site, scofacts.org, for copies of some of the documents.

Now if you don't like Al's analysis then that's fine, ignore it. I personally respect Al and the work that he's done and I enjoyed his analysis. Who cares whether or not Al and PJ had a falling out at Groklaw? Al has done a mountain of work to bring us audio and video recordings of hearings, copies of legal documents, and first-hand reports from court hearings. And all at his own expense. If all this work makes you a troll at Groklaw, then I hope that I become one too.

Lawywers always ask for fees, if they think they are going to win or not. It has little to do with the strength of their case.

IANAL and I know that Lawyers usually ask for legal fees when they win (or think they're going to win) a case, but do they normally ask for the fees involved in preparing an opposition memo? That's what I found entertaining. Specifically this piece right here:

The context of SCO's motion, the lack of legal authority to support it, and the absence of any plausible reason for tying the adjudication of this case to the outcome of the IBM litigation reveal SCO's motion for what it is -- a naked effort to manipulate the Court system, and DCC, for SCO's own benefit. DCC therefore respectfully requests that the Court deny SCO's Motion For Stay and award DCC its fees and costs incurred in preparing this Opposition.

Re:This is a non-story (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001535)

... and Al Petrovsky is considered a troll on Groklaw.
Al Petrofsky has done some tremendous research work on the TSG case, particularly the DC lawsuit in Michigan. He is to be congratulated for this.

There is also an attempt to smear Al's name going on on various web sites. The root source of this smear campaign is an open and interesting question.

sPh

Out smarted more than out gunned (2, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001013)

I think DC could have probably played this out to the end just as easily as IBM seems to be able to. DC was smart in that they just didn't have any of SCO's products running in production, as I understand it. It was almost the equivilent of the BSA auditing you for unlicensed M$ products and finding out you're a Linux shop. Oh, and all M$ products sitting on a shelf are in their original boxes and amount to old copies of WFW and MS-DOS 3.2.

(OT) Just to be a really picky /.er. (1)

EdlinUser (50699) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001418)

>>>
Oh, and all M$ products sitting on a shelf are in their original boxes and amount to old copies of WFW and MS-DOS 3.2.
>>>

Did you mean MS-DOS 3.3 or perhaps MS-DOS 6.2?
3.2 wasn't the disaster that was DOS 4 but it was a pain. Most companies quickly upgraded when 3.3 came out.

I wonder... (4, Insightful)

THESuperShawn (764971) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001182)

When DirecTV did a similar (but more aggressive) blanket (and mostly claim-less) lawsuit against supposed "pirates", asking (demanding?)for a "settlement" to avoid legal action, it only took one "win" for the little guys to basically cease DirecTV's actions.

I am not a lawyer (but I know a few good jokes about them), but would a "win" against SCO basically kill off their entire case? If DC "wins" (or the case is dismissed), does that mean SCO's claims of licensing fees are over? And if that happens, can the few who actually paid SCO "licensing" fees get a refund?

mo3 up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11001276)

[samag.com] in the Shouts To t+he Everyday...Redefine tto, can be a tired arguments

On the day sco dies. (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001311)

We should register SCO.COM and put a website with Nelson from the Simpsons just pointing and going "Ha HA!"

Re:On the day sco dies. (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001592)

Yeah, but in reality, it doesn't work that way. sco.com website will be changed to say something along the lines of "The SCO Group, unit of the department of the contractor of the fully owned subsidiary of (company)", and to state the new corporate motto, "ownership relations of our IP makes Commodore roll in their grave", and if you try to search for them from Google, you'll find that the #2 hit is a company that sells AmigaOS Ghost Detectors retrofitted to find UNIX(r) ghosts (that won't be detecting AmigaOS either, but their new companion product, Vapor-Radar(tm), will find anything from AmigaOS 4.0 to traces of Duke Nukem Forever, if you're into such things).

Costs on Motion (3, Informative)

eldapo (804410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001333)

Requesting attorneys fees and costs from your opponent on a motion is pretty much standard practice. What will be interesting to see is if the defendants (Daimler/Chrysler) later move for sanctions under the local "frivolous claim" rule in their jurisdiction. These kinds of rules exist in the Federal courts (Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and most states. It looks like Michigan has a similar rule in effect (MCR 2.625(A)(2), MCL 600.2591(2)). Nice thing about these kinds of provisions is that their sanctions can be directed against the attorneys as well as the parties. Sorry for not including links to the citations, but for obvious reasons I don't want to be responsible for the "slashdotting" of a particular Federal or state court website. Just Google it.

IP-Wars? (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001379)

Nice link to IP-Wars in the article. Maybe Groklaw will link to anti-slash [anti-slash.org] in retatliation.

Not much to say (1)

ThoreauHD (213527) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001566)

It's pretty sad. I think it was more fun when the Iraqi(SCO) Information Minister was screaming at people. Oh well, now we get to watch them get their asses get kicked in by everyone on earth.

Nice variety of sources (3, Insightful)

sphealey (2855) | more than 9 years ago | (#11001583)

Kudos to the author for using a variety of source sites. I count Grokkaw [groklaw.net] , SCOfacts [scofacts.org] , and ip-wars [ip-wars.net] at a minimum. This is an excellent diversity of sources and points to a healthy community of discussion.

sPh

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...