SCO chief executive Darl McBride’s explanation and defense of his software company’s legal strategy has brought on a flurry of activity in the open-source software community. Among the more significant developments, SCO indicated it is poised to bring legal action against at least one of the companies that declined its offer to license Linux, which it claims borrows from its proprietary source code thanks to IBM, a defendant in SCO’s $3 billion suit.
OK, so here is another column's worth of bluster and hoo-hah from the Raelians of the computer industry. They're going to sue an end user. They'll sue Novell. They're gonna sue Hollywood. They'll sue you and me and the guy behind the tree. They'll re-open the BSD case and re-litigate the Scopes monkey trial. At some point, do sane people not have the right to say, "Enough of this clown. He is obviously running a hoax here." If you actually look at the documents that SCO is filing in the suits it already has (IBM and Red Hat), it is clear that these guys are treating this whole thing as a joke. Their pleadings aren't serious. They are legal noise.. bereft of research, legal reasoning, and sometimes without even a coherent point. They are clearly using the courts as a prop with which to decorate their PR campaign. That is the only significance their lawsuit has for them. And it's the only reason they would file more. This is a scam of some kind. It must be, because it is not a serious lawsuit. The documents are on the web; read them. They have no case. They have no evidence. They have nothing except the same bluster they have been blowing into the eyes of the press and the financial analysts for months. Now pressed to the wire by IBM in court to say precisely what this lawsuit is about, they can't do it. We know that because they just had a meeting in the Judge's chambers to see if SCO could do it. If they could, a hearing on the 5th of December would not need to be scheduled. Now the court docket says, "Hearing scheduled for 12/5." It's put-up or shut-up time for SCO, and they just had an opportunity to show the judge they have something worth holding a trial over. They couldn't. Why is this guy Darl McBride even being taken seriously anymore? He is a carnival barker, a snake-oil salesman who threatens lawsuits like a horseback preacher threathens damnation. But when somebody actually takes him to court, like IBM did, he hasn't got squat.
you are absolutly right! except than law and politics don't make sens, because its always a word game and the outcome depend on the trial judge. if he is by the book and the words or if he is rational and fair. just for the sake of it, even if i do not support SCO, the exact analogy would be: We own the technology of how to make the mortar and IBM told you how to make the mortar. A house can no be build without mortar, therfore the brirks, wood, nails, etc all belongs to us because its a derived work from using mortar. If i alow you to invent bricks and give it away it would dilute the value of my mortar, since i no longer can bundle it. anyhow, your absolutly right, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENS.
Can SCO actually license linux? Wouldn't they have to get permission of all contributers before they could re-license it? Or am i just being daft thinking that just because they decide they might have code in linux that they now own the whole thing? Isn't that like someone telling me they now own my house because a builder stole a few bricks from that person to help build my house? I'm no lawyer but that wouldn't make any sense.
Loading ...
SCO CEO Defines, Defends Legal Strategy
Posted by: Jay Lyman November 19, 2003 02:40 PMSCO chief executive Darl McBride’s explanation and defense of his software company’s legal strategy has brought on a flurry of activity in the open-source software community. Among the more significant developments, SCO indicated it is poised to bring legal action against at least one of the companies that declined its offer to license Linux, which it claims borrows from its proprietary source code thanks to IBM, a defendant in SCO’s $3 billion suit.
They're going to sue an end user. They'll sue Novell. They're gonna sue Hollywood. They'll sue you and me and the guy behind the tree. They'll re-open the BSD case and re-litigate the Scopes monkey trial.
At some point, do sane people not have the right to say, "Enough of this clown. He is obviously running a hoax here." If you actually look at the documents that SCO is filing in the suits it already has (IBM and Red Hat), it is clear that these guys are treating this whole thing as a joke. Their pleadings aren't serious. They are legal noise.. bereft of research, legal reasoning, and sometimes without even a coherent point.
They are clearly using the courts as a prop with which to decorate their PR campaign. That is the only significance their lawsuit has for them. And it's the only reason they would file more.
This is a scam of some kind. It must be, because it is not a serious lawsuit. The documents are on the web; read them. They have no case. They have no evidence. They have nothing except the same bluster they have been blowing into the eyes of the press and the financial analysts for months.
Now pressed to the wire by IBM in court to say precisely what this lawsuit is about, they can't do it. We know that because they just had a meeting in the Judge's chambers to see if SCO could do it. If they could, a hearing on the 5th of December would not need to be scheduled. Now the court docket says, "Hearing scheduled for 12/5." It's put-up or shut-up time for SCO, and they just had an opportunity to show the judge they have something worth holding a trial over. They couldn't.
Why is this guy Darl McBride even being taken seriously anymore? He is a carnival barker, a snake-oil salesman who threatens lawsuits like a horseback preacher threathens damnation. But when somebody actually takes him to court, like IBM did, he hasn't got squat.
except than law and politics don't make sens, because its always a word game and the outcome depend on the trial judge.
if he is by the book and the words or if he is rational and fair.
just for the sake of it, even if i do not support SCO, the exact analogy would be:
We own the technology of how to make the mortar and IBM told you how to make the mortar. A house can no be build without mortar, therfore the brirks, wood, nails, etc all belongs to us because its a derived work from using mortar. If i alow you to invent bricks and give it away it would dilute the value of my mortar, since i no longer can bundle it.
anyhow, your absolutly right, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENS.