Update: SCO/IBM Discovery Process Continues

Groklaw / ZDNet Australia ^ | 3 june 2004 | Pamela Jones/ZDNet Australia

[ShadowAce]

I have posted only one of three articles at this URL. There is also a SCO press release there discussing the Discovery process.

[ShadowAce]

SCO Ping

[petro45acp]

Down goes SCO! Down goes SCO! Good riddance.

You bluffed, you lost, take the rest of your chips and go home! And just be glad we're not vindictive!

[Golden Eagle]

More one sided bunk from Groklaw to help extend the mind control of it's readership. A factual representation of the current events are found here:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39149507,00.htm

[shadowman99]

"And just be glad we're not vindictive!"

Speak for yourself. I think SCO should lose the right to distribute GPL software. That would effectively be the end of the line for them as a UNIX vendor.

[shadowman99]

What are you doing here? You have a lot of homework to do!

Or did you find the millions of lines of code? Please feel free to post your research!

[holden]

Do you suppose it was on the basis of some particular person's (or "Office's") effusive encouragement or the temptation of a certain number of vaprous dollars, or the deathly fear of realizing the horse one is riding is otherwise irreversibly headed over a cliff, that gave SCO this mendacious chutzpah?

IMO, SCO's suit will be in tatters soon. Listen for offers of settlement negotiations within weeks.

Who ever thought IBM couldn't win a lawyer's game?!   I hope IBM holds out for the industry's full accounting of MSFT's possibly illegal, hidden activities here.

HF

[holden]

(from your link:) "[SCO's court] filing added that [SCO had] "attempted to follow IBM's scattered path through the winding history of countless alterations, derivations and revisions, but the task is nearly impossible without a map, a map so easily accessible to IBM, so clearly relevant to this case and so absolutely essential to SCO that IBM's withholding of it and subsequent filing of a summary judgement motion is unconscionable".

I've heard that noise before, coming from a flying Nazgul in LOTR2.

HF

[ShadowAce]

If you would actually READ the articles linked above, you would have realized that the ZDNet article you linked to was ALREADY included.

IOW, I was already presenting both sides of the argument.

[Golden Eagle]

I saw exactly what you did, you posted all that groklaw BS then gave a link to Linux Today which didn't include but a snipet. Bottom line is after looking at the zdnet article it should be obvious to anyone how pathetically one sided the supposed "analysis" from groklaw is. Once again, nothing but the whinings of a shrill over-emotional female fanatically obsessed with Linux.

[chilepepper]

SCOX stock closed at 5.12 today... the game is almost over and the fools who bought into SCO bull will be left holding the bag... the smart money is streaming out for SCOX daily -- check what's happening with their convertible stock...

[Golden Eagle]

And supposed Linux powerhouse Novell has fallen from $14 to the $7 range since Feb 04.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NOVL&t=6m

[chilepepper]

I'll take a 50% drop over a 80% drop every time...

Just face it, the rats are leaving the sinking ship.

[Golden Eagle]

Just face it, the rats are leaving the sinking ship.

Novell, or SCO?

[chilepepper]

You are free to bet you money on the one you want...

[Doohickey]

Novell: Where good software goes to die...

[Golden Eagle]

I wouldn't bet MY money on either...

[Golden Eagle]

Novell: Where good software goes to die...

I'll never forget the wild emotions I went through the first time I read they were buying the rights to Unix, we had just finished ripping all their crap out, at least we thought. NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo.....

[WL-law]

More one sided bunk from Groklaw to help extend the mind control of it's readership. A factual representation of the current events are found here:

SCO's claims are still based on a fatally flawed legal theory. IBM does not claim, and does not need to claim, that there is no UNIX code in AIX.

It was clear in the ATT-IBM license, and further clarified in the ATT "Echo" magazine notice to its licensees, that the derivative code created by ATT licensees (including IBM) belonged to the licensee and could be distributed. That means code that IBM wrote, intended to be used with some pieces of UNIX code in AIX.

SCO's legal theory of derivatives (i.e., the "whole of AIX is a derivative") is rendered meaningless, because ATT gave the rights BY CONTRACT to IBM to distribut its own AIX code -- the only restriction placed by ATT was that IBM could not release the UNIX code itself, the DIRECT unix code.

David Bois thinks, apparently, that by his legal genius and winning personality and with a stupid jury (paraphrasing his own words, in a lecture I heard him give recently) that he can waltz past this problem.

I doubt it, and I recall a similar (poor, unethical, sham) performance that Bois gave in the Tallahassie trial th the Gore2000 drama.

[Golden Eagle]

IBM may very well win the case, they have enough legal resources to outlast even the US Federal Government as we saw in their never ending anti-trust trials. Something lawyers never seem to understand is, just because something is found to be legal doesn't mean it is necessarily right, and my concerns of IBM supporting GPL software like Linux go well beyond the outcome of this one particular court case.

IBM could have kept their agreement with SCO and developed a US-based version of Unix for Intel processors, instead of backstabbing them like they did and partnering with the foreigners and fanatics of the free software "community" instead, who benefited from IBM's Unix technology immensely. Some message board jockeys seem just fine with that, and some aren't, but this one particular case won't necessarily put that issue to rest either way.