I read the floowing at groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050729190708887 If this holds up, and hopefully will, then SCO is dead at the end of this fiaSCO (maybe they should add the fia to the sign in Utah). We could start a fund, because they're going to be too poor to pay attention. Broke, busted, bankrupt, and out of business! John

On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 18:45 -0700, Jordan Michaels wrote:

John Scott wrote:

...

I read the floowing at groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050729190708887

If this holds up, and hopefully will, then SCO is dead at the end of this fiaSCO (maybe they should add the fia to the sign in Utah). We could start a fund, because they're going to be too poor to pay attention. Broke, busted, bankrupt, and out of business! John

Good riddance.

Long live Novell!

What would be the icing on the cake, is for the United States to enact criminal laws so that psychopathic CEO's get sent to jail for this kind of Pirate\Raider garbage.

On Thursday 04 August 2005 6:07 am, Mike McMullin wrote:

...

Good riddance.

Long live Novell!

  What would be the icing on the cake, is for the United States to enact criminal laws so that psychopathic CEO's get sent to jail for this kind of Pirate\Raider garbage.

YES!! Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

On Wednesday 03 August 2005 11:48 pm, Greg Wallace wrote:

...

I read the floowing at groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050729190708887

If this holds up, and hopefully will, then SCO is dead at the end of this fiaSCO (maybe they should add the fia to the sign in Utah).  We could start a fund, because they're going to be too poor to pay attention.  Broke, busted, bankrupt, and out of business! John

Yeah.  It sounds like they gambled and lost, big time.  Hard to see how they can possibly come up with explanations for all of those discrepancies between the facts and what they have said over the years.

We really have to give credit to Novell for timing.....it can be "everything." SCO is LOOSING reserves (money) DAILY. The time was right to bring out the evidence that Novell has been sitting on for sometime. They've take all the right steps to give SCO ample opportunities to "come clean," and now it's time to take ALL of SCO's cash and properties, leaving them with nothing. McBride WON'T be given another opportunity as CEO with any decent company again, IMHO. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

On Thursday 04 August 2005 8:06 am, James Knott wrote:

Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

We really have to give credit to Novell for timing.....it can be "everything." SCO is LOOSING reserves (money) DAILY. The time was right to bring out the evidence that Novell has been sitting on for sometime. They've take all the right steps to give SCO ample opportunities to "come clean," and now it's time to take ALL of SCO's cash and properties, leaving them with nothing. McBride WON'T be given another opportunity as CEO with any decent company again, IMHO.

Maybe his Billyness will offer him something. ;-)

'Could be, James, but I doubt it would happen anytime soon. McBride should be relegated to ONLY cleaning toilets in public bathrooms in France. ;) Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

On Saturday 06 August 2005 7:04 am, James Knott wrote:

Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

On Thursday 04 August 2005 8:06 am, James Knott wrote:

...

Maybe his Billyness will offer him something.  ;-)

'Could be, James, but I doubt it would happen anytime soon. McBride should be relegated to ONLY cleaning toilets in public bathrooms in France. ;)

I was thinking of something along the lines of "Vice Flunky".  ;-)

Ok......but his job is cleaning toilets. ;) Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

On Saturday, August 06, 2005 @ 12:11 AM, John Anderson wrote:

On Wednesday 03 August 2005 07:48 pm, Greg Wallace wrote:

Greg: I'd like to ask you to change your mailer setup so that the proper FROM: header is used.

Your FROM header appears as if it were originating at suse.com . A lot of us use filters to highlight and sort mail into special categories, such as announcements from SuSE or postings by SuSE employees, and your faulty settings trigger these rules.

And as you can see, your settings do nothing to hide your true email address anyway...

Received: (qmail 21192 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2005 03:49:14 -0000 From: "Greg Wallace" Sender: "Greg Wallace" To:

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen

John: This was to make it so that if someone hit reply, the mail would automatically be addressed back to the list, where it should go. My name was still on the mail, so I thought that was a good idea. I guess not. Greg Wallace

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 00:29 -0800, Greg Wallace wrote:

This was to make it so that if someone hit reply, the mail would automatically be addressed back to the list, where it should go. My name was still on the mail, so I thought that was a good idea. I guess not.

Greg Wallace

Have you tried using the Reply To: feature as I do? It does work for the most part even though there are still some email clients that don't properly with it. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 05:59:38PM -0800, Greg Wallace wrote:

On Saturday, August 06, 2005 @ 5:10 AM, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 00:29 -0800, Greg Wallace wrote:

...

...

This was to make it so that if someone hit reply, the mail would automatically be addressed back to the list, where it should go. My name was still on the mail, so I thought that was a good idea. I guess not.

Greg Wallace

...

Have you tried using the Reply To: feature as I do? It does work for the most part even though there are still some email clients that don't properly with it.

...

-- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998

...

"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

Unfortunately, the email program I'm using doesn't seem to provide that capability.

That's because you're using Outlook.

Greg Wallace

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 August 2005 8:34 pm, John Scott wrote:
>>If this holds up, and hopefully will, then SCO is dead at the end of
>>this fiaSCO (maybe they should add the fia to the sign in Utah).  We
>>could start a fund, because they're going to be too poor to pay
>>attention.  Broke, busted, bankrupt, and out of business!
> I've been following the SCO thing in Groklaw for quite a while and it 
> sometimes becomes quite amusing. It comes down to a few points:
> 1. What did SCO (classic == Tarantella now part of Sun) get from Novell 
> initially.

According to Novell, they didn't get the copyrights.

> 2. Did IBM violate its contract terms WRT "derived works" when it 
> contributed NUMA, SMP, and JFS to Linux. (Note that this was not code that 
> SCO owned).

The claims about JFS are curious, as it was developed for OS/2 and then
ported to AIX & UNIX.  They are apparently claiming derivative works,
even though they never, according to AT&T, inherited that right.

> 3. Other than the above 3 elements, is there any other code in Linux that 
> truly came directly from the AT&T code base. 

According to that note from the senior SCO software engineer, there was
nothing that wasn't there legally i.e. from legitimate 3rd parties.

> 
> One must remember, that Caldera (a Novell spinoff effectively started by Ray 
> Noorda) was a major Linux distro when they bought 1 division of SCO 
> (classic). SCO classic then changed its name to Tarantella, and Caldera 
> changed its name to the SCO Group. 

Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Thursday 04 August 2005 8:53 am, James Knott wrote:

...

According to Novell, they didn't get the copyrights. This is true, but a matter for the courts.

...

The claims about JFS are curious, as it was developed for OS/2 and then ported to AIX & UNIX. They are apparently claiming derivative works, even though they never, according to AT&T, inherited that right. The "derivative works" is complicated, and there is quite a bit of testimony as to what IBM and AT&T agreed to. IBM's perpetual license predates the sale of Unix from AT&T to Novell. In the very strictest sense, any program one writes in Unix is a "derivative work". If IBM had agreed to the original AT&T clause, then NUMA, SMP and JFS would qualify. (JFS is more complicated because the Linux version is effectively the OS2 version).

AT&T had at one point clarified what was referred to by derivative rights. According to what I read, they meant it to refer only to actual AT&T code included in the software and specifically excluded the other code, written by the licencee. So in the case of JFS, if IBM had included Unix code, then the rights would apply only to that code and not JFS as a whole, as SCO claimed.

Jerry Feldman wrote:

The bottom line is that Darl McBride and company are not only ruining the former Caldera, but doing their best to hurt the entire Unix/Linux marketplace, which might be their objective.

I wonder what their lawyers think about the Novell suit, particularly regarding McBride trying to get the copyrights from Novell and also about that software engineer's memo? Did they know about them or were they surprised?

Peter B Van Campen wrote:

On Thursday 04 August 2005 14:16, James Knott wrote:

...

...

The bottom line is that Darl McBride and company are not only ruining the former Caldera, but doing their best to hurt the entire Unix/Linux marketplace, which might be their objective. I wonder what their lawyers think about the Novell suit, particularly regarding McBride trying to get the copyrights from Novell and also about that software engineer's memo? Did they know about them or were

Jerry Feldman wrote: they surprised?

Hi,

Well the SCOG lawyers DID demand payment in ADVANCE!

PeterB

p.s. remember that the now NONsecret ATT-Berkeley agreement strongly suggests that traditional UNIX code has been PUBLIC DOMAIN for many years now, and that consequently these suits are MOOT

My question is what happens, should the lawyers find out that the client has lied? That there really is no case? Somehow, I don't get the impression that David Boies would proceed with a case he knows to be fraudulent.

Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On Thursday 04 August 2005 3:46 pm, James Knott wrote:
>>My question is what happens, should the lawyers find out that the client
>>has lied?  That there really is no case?  Somehow, I don't get the
>>impression that David Boies would proceed with a case he knows to be
>>fraudulent.
> There are 2 issues here:
> 1. There is no real case, his clients misled him, but there is no fraud. 
> Here, I think the attorney would be upset, but may carry the case forward, 
> or he may withdraw. 
> 
> 2. The client has provided fraudulent data to the attorney and to the court. 
> In this case, the attorney probably should withdraw from the case, but that 
> might be difficult because of some attorney-client privileges.  However, 
> the attorney is an officer of the court, and can get in quite a bit of 
> trouble if he presents knowingly fraudulent data to the court. 

Given that despite being told by both their senior software engineer and
an outside consultant, that there was no infringment, that SCO threatend
 companies with lawsuits, if they didn't licence Linux, I'd say they're
getting close to fraud.  There is also something called "tortious
interference", where someone tries to use the courts, to unjustly attack
a competitor, which may also apply here.

Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 15:25, James Knott wrote:

...

Given that despite being told by both their senior software engineer and an outside consultant, that there was no infringment, that SCO threatend companies with lawsuits, if they didn't licence Linux, I'd say they're getting close to fraud. There is also something called "tortious interference", where someone tries to use the courts, to unjustly attack a competitor, which may also apply here.

Smells of Lotus V Borland over the look and feel issue of their respective spread sheets. Back in 1985-6 the case was eventually tossed. Its time someone bought out SCO for something far less than a penny on a dollar and opened their source.

Here's another curious item. http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/08/09/2358237.shtml?tid=88&tid=106

On Thursday 04 August 2005 3:46 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

p.s. remember that the now NONsecret ATT-Berkeley agreement strongly suggests that traditional UNIX code has been PUBLIC DOMAIN for many years now, and that consequently these suits are MOOT

My question is what happens, should the lawyers find out that the client has lied?  That there really is no case?  Somehow, I don't get the impression that David Boies would proceed with a case he knows to be fraudulent.

I'd like to agree with you, but he is a lawyer. :) Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

On Saturday 06 August 2005 8:04 am, James Knott wrote:

Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

On Thursday 04 August 2005 3:46 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

My question is what happens, should the lawyers find out that the client has lied? That there really is no case? Somehow, I don't get the impression that David Boies would proceed with a case he knows to be fraudulent.

I'd like to agree with you, but he is a lawyer. :)

Well, there's a first time for everything. ;-)

It certainly would be the "first time!" :) Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

On Saturday 06 August 2005 10:23 am, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Fred Miller [08-05-05 23:51]:

...

I'd like to agree with you, but he is a lawyer. :)

Then, his participation should reap severe repercussions from the bar and judicial for *knowing* involvement.....

That's expecting a great deal from bar associations, which have a less than doing what is morally right history. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.