-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 03 May 2003 09:14, James Mohr wrote:
On Sunday 04 May 2003 06:26, Curtis Rey wrote: <snip>
If anything is in the works on IBMs side regarding a buyout I'll bet my last dollar that they wait until SCO is so desperate and get the best bang for the buck, on IBMs terms rather than SCOs ( or someone like M$ swoops in for the kill at an opportune moment).
As the article said:
"First, it provides a way to place Linux in an intellectual property limbo, perhaps making those planning to adopt it more likely to go elsewhere (queue the SCO marketing department)."
or perhaps to Microsoft. It would not surprise me in the least if MS paid Caldera off in their DR DOS suit or in some other way. Why spend $500 million in marketing to "destroy" Linux when you can do it for half that by paying Caldera to do that for you.
Well, this becomes questionable regarding the timing and the recent rollout of Windows server 2003. Would it be beyond plausibility to see this sort of thing happening in order to a more positive response in the market to a product line that faces scepticism in regards to licensing and price at time when both the economy and security are major issues?
<snip>
The possible motives could (well do) give one a headache. But on the otherhand this borders on the absurd. I mean McBride and Co had been long on accusations and short on about anything else substantial. I mean fearing that disclosing even a hint at what part of the Linux kernel is under SCO license/patents for fear of them scrubbing out the evidence is, well...., just dumb.
<snip>
I'm not a lawyer, but in some of the cases that I have followed "rules of disclosure and discovery" apply to the defense and not the general public. In one of the articles there was a comment that one of the motions could be to "keep proprietary evidence secret". I could image that Caldera motions to keep secret what lines of code it thinks were "stolen". That would prevent the developers from cleaning up the code before the trial.
True enough. We, those outside of the parties directly involved, are not privy to being exposed to trade secrets and proprietary codes. However, IBM is and they have just lately made a statement about the allegations in a manner that leads me to believe that perhaps they have more specific knowledge and therefore feel confident about their counter allegations regarding the meat of this. Those that are accussed have the right to understand the exact nature of the allegations - otherwise a clear and congent defense is not possible. Granted the David Boies is a very competent attorney with a large and capable team, however IBM has a fleet of laywers as well. Given the track record of Mr. Boies of late one might garner to say the he has a less than perfect batting averages. The larger problem that I can see outside of the direct consequence of the charges it that it will drag on, further keep things in "limbo" and this is were it can get farily destructive IMHO. But this is also an indication that Linux has come into its' own regarding market value and the industry. Large viable corporations sue each other all the time. Having said that, one also realizes that most companies weather these in stride. Yes, this could have an impact on Linux in the market in some cases, but on the other hand develpment rolls and as does the market. I can bet fairly confidently that overall Linux will keep rolling along as well.
<snip>
On the other hand, I am being indirectly accused of using something illegal (or using it illegally, whatever). Don't I have the right to know just what it is that is illegal???...........
<snip>
So, unless Caldera tells me what I am doing wrong I cannot correct it. Obviously Caldera won't be going after the users. However, it is a moral issue of being accused of using something illegally. I wonder what Caldera would do with a million plus law suits forcing them to divuldge just what it is we are doing illegally.
This is where the danger is for SCO IMHO. If they have any hope of retaining any marketability and client base one would wonder if this would not dramatically backfire on SCO. Perhaps aspect of Linux are "limbo" as you suggest. But the larger question is the viability of SCO as a product and commodity in light of its current state of affairs. Those in a position to promote SCO products and services have been blatantly curtailed to only those directly employed by SCO. Those outside of any vested interest face both a growing avoidance of SCO either by boycott or as a direct effect of the boycott. I mean I'm an admin at a large company when I conference with my CTO. My suggestions as to which product and services to contract or purchase will most not likely involve SCO due to the quagmire revolving around the company. This does not necessarily translate over to Linux however. I would only translate or carry over if their were questions about how it would impact anything my company were doing that might involve the use of a proprietary code or product line that may taint my own product or service. As of now I find no indication, at least if I were in a postion to have greater background knowledge of what may or may not be in question, to believe that I was in a position of risk or compromise regarding any infringement I could incur using a Linux or OSS product. In otherwords, just because SCO is screaming vaguely that IBM has improperly used code belonging to SCO and I have no SCO or IBM wares why would I be overly concerned? Even if I had concerns related to SCO. This would only pertain to hardware that was directly purchased from IBM and that then had Linux/OSS software intsalled by IBM AFAICT. So, if I bought Linux servers for Dell or others why would I be overly concerned. Yes this may extend generally to Linux but unless it is indicated then overall I would question what why I would directly be concerned. However, on the otherside of the coin, if one checks the changelog for the 2.5.68 kernel one does find reference to IBM developers in regards to scsi and IPV4 code and a bit or /proc code relatete to meminfo and the S390. Likewise there are references to HP, adaptec and a host of other major companies. In light of this one can see a negative impact on SCO in a larger sense. Since these companies have far more reservation in dealing with SCO then vice verse. So, if anyone has to be concerned about their future I would speculate the SCO is in a much more tenuious position than anyone else. Like I said. This may very well be a case study in Professional and Market suicide and Blacklisting more than anything else. As for your thoughts on ancillary torts against SCO during or after knowledge and findings of fact. This also is an area I would be concerned with if I were SCO or partnered with them. If it is found that SCO is in deed using any degree of smoke and mirrors the backlash could be potentially devistating IMHO. Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+tTKZ7WVLiDrqeksRAqY0AKDmOQZ0l69ONRxrB7R1c3uxRBFfsACg3Bgg 35HsxAG9W9fzPXleyNsuDNA= =nD1N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----