SCO moronic loss in Novell suit

[RJack]

SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622

Here is my old 29 Dec 2007 post to this group about SCO:

*********************************************************************
SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software under
the GPL. Remember SCO Linux? After discovering the folly of the GPL
business model they tried mindless litigation.

This demonstrates the wisdom of incorporating Apache or BSD style
licensing in commercial software. You don't have to contend with
mindless GPL morons, who wish to abolish the enforcement of intellectual
property rights,

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html ,
by filing lawsuits claiming enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Any company that thinks that the long term capitalization of GPL
software is possible deserves to eventually go bankrupt in litigation.
Good riddance to SCO. They deserved it.

The IBM Corporation, the world's first computer monopolist, whose
revenue stream from the enforcement of software patents is second to
none is playing the GPL folks for fools. The Microsoft Corporation, the
world's second computer monopolist, desperately needs GPL Linux software
to hold about 25% of the market to avoid DOJ antitrust scrutiny.

Do GPL folks really think that long term they're going to win?

There is good evidence that commercial companies are planning future
projects that incorporate real "open source" software under BSD and
Apache style license due to the SFLC's intimidation tactics.
*********************************************************************

Regards,
rjack

[Alexander Terekhov]

RJack, I must disagree with you that SCO's suit against Novell was
moronic.

As for the loss, consider that the loss in a jury trial was anticipated
by SCO:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-761.pdf

"Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance should be tried to the
Court"

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622

"SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to
SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but
it's not over."

Here's what he's referring to, the issues the parties agreed would be
decided by the judge, not the jury. It's the next step. One of the
issues is specific performance, meaning that SCO wants to argue that
even if they didn't get the copyrights before, they were entitled under
the APA and Amendment 2 to ask for the copyrights if they ever needed
them. Like now, I gather. "

See also:

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5236790806.html

(Novell tries again for an SCO KO Apr. 24, 2007)

"Now, thanks to Novell's latest efforts to win a summary judgment
against SCO -- that is, Novell is asking the court to rule in its favor
without a trial because the evidence is so completely clear that Novell
is in the right -- we finally know why SCO did not get Unix's IP.

[...]

Novell's senior VP and general counsel, Joseph A. LaSala Jr. argues
today that SCO only got the "copyrights ... required for [Santa Cruz
Operation] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of
UNIX and UnixWare technologies." And, since SCO didn't ask for any
specific required copyrights, it never got them. "

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070530120553718

"A. With respect to Schedule 1.1(b) of the Agreement, titled "Excluded
Assets", Section V, Subsection A shall be revised to read:

All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks
owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to
exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare
technologies. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[RJack]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
RJack, I must disagree with you that SCO's suit against Novell was
moronic.

The thrust of my comment wasn't about SCO v. Novell being individual
winners or losers. The copyrights are are old and irrelevant. A clean
implementation would be child's play for a commercial firm in 2010.

Most of the functions described by those old unix copyrights may only be
implemented in very narrow, hardware dictated ways and merge directly
into non-protectable code. Run most of that code through the AFC test
and there's nothing left to protect through copyright. How many really
novel, creative ways can you manipulate at the hardware level for SMP,
RCU or NUMA stuff? How do you copyright a spin-lock? I believe you have
done extensive work at that hardware level. Moving bits to and from
registers and memory at operating system hardware level is dictated by
hardware specifications -- not creative expression.

My comment was aimed at the utter futility of maintaining a "services"
business model around a GPL style "copyleft" license . It doesn't matter
whether Novell or SCO wins -- they lose. What good is a Pyrrhic victory
for shareholders?

I noticed today that Versa Technology had two pro hac vice attorneys
approved and entered. This indicates they are not talking settlement
with the SFLC. I also haven't seen an extension order for inititial
document exchange for Versa. Versa was the only defendant to raise this
affirmative defense:

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ILLEGAL, UNCONSCIONABLE AND CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred, limited and/or excluded on the grounds that the alleged license
at issue in this case and/or certain provisions contained therein are
illegal, unconscionable and barred by public policy as well as by
statutory and case law.

I expect a motion to dismiss based on this defense from Versa in the
near future. When the GPL falls what is Red Hat's and Novell's next
business model? Without the GPL's benefit in suppression of new entry
level competitors, IBM and Microsoft will discard Red Hat and Novell on
the same trash heap where SCO resides.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Alexander Terekhov]

RJack wrote:
[...]

Post by RJack
I noticed today that Versa Technology had two pro hac vice attorneys
approved and entered. This indicates they are not talking settlement
with the SFLC.

I must agree with you, RJack.

"03/30/2010 98 ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE. Attorney Paul Kim
for Versa Technology Inc. admitted Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin on 3/30/2010) (jmi) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 99 ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE. Attorney Mark W.
Yocca for Versa Technology Inc. admitted Pro Hac Vice. SO ORDERED
(Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/30/2010) (jmi) (Entered:
03/30/2010 "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <***@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[7]

Post by RJack
SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622
*********************************************************************
SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software under
the GPL. Remember SCO Linux? After discovering the folly of the GPL
business model they tried mindless litigation.

Of course Rjack the stupid 1 has spoken again.

Thats why Linux released under GPL
sells 5 million to 10 million embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!


From routers, set top boxes, flat TVs, DVD recorders, MP3 MP4 MP5 players
to digital photoframes, its all Linux. And it brings in estimated
revenues of 270 billion dollars for the tens of thousands of companies
using Linux around the globe.

Post by RJack
Regards,
rjack

idiot!

[Clogwog]

Post by 7

Post by RJack
SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622
*********************************************************************
SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software under
the GPL. Remember SCO Linux? After discovering the folly of the GPL
business model they tried mindless litigation.

Of course Rjack the stupid 1 has spoken again.
Thats why Linux released under GPL
sells 5 million to 10 million embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From routers, set top boxes, flat TVs, DVD recorders, MP3 MP4 MP5 players
to digital photoframes, its all Linux. And it brings in estimated
revenues of 270 billion dollars for the tens of thousands of companies
using Linux around the globe.

You forgot to mention your wife's dildo and your own self-spanking device,
all under GPL, I bet!
Loading Image...

Post by 7

Post by RJack
Regards,
rjack

idiot!

Nice sig!
Peter, is that you?!!!!!!

[s***@freenet.co.uk]

Post by RJack
SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622
*********************************************************************
SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software under
the GPL. Remember SCO Linux? After discovering the folly of the GPL
business model they tried mindless litigation.

You have absolutely no grasp of the history of SCO group.
SCO didn't begin with the release of SCO linux, they began as a LINUX
distribution called Caldera. For many years they were a SUCCESSFUL linux
distribution who aquired enough cash to BUY stuff like DRDOS and SCO.

Only once they had bought SCO did they decide suddenly to start suing people
over the linux they themselves had been distributing for the previous few
years.

Post by RJack
Any company that thinks that the long term capitalization of GPL
software is possible deserves to eventually go bankrupt in litigation.
Good riddance to SCO. They deserved it.

The GPL has NOTHING to do with why they began litigation, they hired an
utterly insane individual as CEO called Darl McBride who deluded himself and
the company into believing that IBM had included THEIR property from SCO
unix into the linux kernel.

5 years later and not a single line of code has been found that infringes.

[RonB]

You have absolutely no grasp of the history of SCO group. SCO didn't
begin with the release of SCO linux, they began as a LINUX distribution
called Caldera. For many years they were a SUCCESSFUL linux distribution
who aquired enough cash to BUY stuff like DRDOS and SCO.

Calera had early success as a desktop Linux, but somewhere along the line
the jumped the shark and their releases got worse and worse (I once used
Caldera Linux and bought two different releases of it). It was only after
their Linux product stalled that they came up with the idea of suing
everyone.

[RonB]

Post by RonB
Calera had early success as a desktop Linux

Err... Caldera... with the "d."

[Moshe]

Post by RonB

Post by RonB
Calera had early success as a desktop Linux

Err... Caldera... with the "d."

Caldera was actually a decent commercial distribution.
It wasn't fancy, but it was well tested and did more or less what
it claimed.

It was one of the first "click and go" distributions, in that the
defaults were good, the partitioning scheme was safe and
reasonable so a noob could actually install it with little fuss.

I still have the books around here some place.

[RJack]

Post by RJack
SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622
*********************************************************************
SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software
under the GPL. Remember SCO Linux? After discovering the folly of
the GPL business model they tried mindless litigation.

You have absolutely no grasp of the history of SCO group. SCO didn't
begin with the release of SCO linux, they began as a LINUX
distribution called Caldera.

I do have sufficient grasp of history such that I own a copy of an
original release CD for Caldera OpenLinux 2.3 (Sam's ISBN
0-672-31761-3). How 'bout you?

For many years they were a SUCCESSFUL linux distribution who aquired
enough cash to BUY stuff like DRDOS and SCO.
Only once they had bought SCO did they decide suddenly to start suing
people over the linux they themselves had been distributing for the
previous few years.

Post by RJack
Any company that thinks that the long term capitalization of GPL
software is possible deserves to eventually go bankrupt in
litigation. Good riddance to SCO. They deserved it.

The GPL has NOTHING to do with why they began litigation, they hired
an utterly insane individual as CEO called Darl McBride who deluded
himself and the company into believing that IBM had included THEIR
property from SCO unix into the linux kernel.
5 years later and not a single line of code has been found that infringes.

So what? Who gives a rat's ass? Not me.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[s***@freenet.co.uk]

Post by RJack
So what? Who gives a rat's ass? Not me.

Why did you start the thread then?

Post by RJack
Sincerely,

Yeah... riiight.

[RJack]

Post by s***@freenet.co.uk

Post by RJack
So what? Who gives a rat's ass? Not me.

Why did you start the thread then?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's about the futility of the "licensed at no charge"
anti-intellectual property GPL and the "ancillary services" business
model built around it. That business model is about to collapse for some
companies. SCO tries a business modeled around the GPL and collapsed.
Novell and Red Hat won't be too far behind. Notice that I *didn't* claim
that Linux was failed technology as an operating system. I claimed the
license and business model surrounding Linux will collapse.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

That business model is about to collapse for some companies.

The business model of manufacturing automobiles and selling
them to consumers has also collapsed for some companies. That
some companies fail is not proof that their business model is
wrong. Ability and luck have their parts to play.

Novell and Red Hat won't be too far behind.

Gee, an anti-GPL Usenet crank predicts that companies with
successful GPL-based businesses will collapse. Surprising!

[RJack]

That business model is about to collapse for some companies.

The business model of manufacturing automobiles and selling them to
consumers has also collapsed for some companies. That some companies
fail is not proof that their business model is wrong. Ability and
luck have their parts to play.

Novell and Red Hat won't be too far behind.

Gee, an anti-GPL Usenet crank predicts that companies with successful
GPL-based businesses will collapse. Surprising!

Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank
perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled
unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell collapse.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by RJack
Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank
perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled
unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell collapse.

Be sure to get back to me when that happens.

[s***@freenet.co.uk]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank
perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled
unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell collapse.

Be sure to get back to me when that happens.

Some time after the heat death of the universe, by my reconning.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank
perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled
unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell
collapse.

Be sure to get back to me when that happens.

Hm? The GPL is not enforceable. Recipient of GPLed software is free to
make use of the GPL or not. When he does not like the default set of
rights granted to him by copyright, he is free to make use of the GPL's
permission by meeting the respective conditions. But he is also free to
chuck it in the bin and act like he never received it in the first
place.

That's one of its main points. It is also one of the main distractions
anti-GPL cranks tend to shout about in misleading ways.

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by RJack
Really... you're finally gettin' it Hyman! A proud anti-GPL crank
perfunctorily and presciently predicts the GPL will be ruled
unenforceable under U.S. law, after which, Red Hat and Novell collapse.

Be sure to get back to me when that happens.

Hm? The GPL is not enforceable. Recipient of GPLed software is free to
make use of the GPL or not. When he does not like the default set of
rights granted to him by copyright, he is free to make use of the GPL's
permission by meeting the respective conditions. But he is also free to
chuck it in the bin and act like he never received it in the first
place.
That's one of its main points. It is also one of the main distractions
anti-GPL cranks tend to shout about in misleading ways.

Have another drink DAK.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[RonB]

Post by RJack
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's about the futility of the "licensed at no charge"
anti-intellectual property GPL and the "ancillary services" business
model built around it. That business model is about to collapse for some
companies. SCO tries a business modeled around the GPL and collapsed.

No, they collapsed when they got away from the GPL business and tried to
sue former partners.

But don't let facts get in your way.

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack
SCO lost its meaningless copyright suit with Novell yesterday.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622

Well, it was a "slander of copyright" suit. AFAICT, the jury decided
that SCO did not get the copyrights in the first place, so that puts a
rather heavy damper on the slander theory. I don't consider it likely
they'll go for "attempted slander" instead, like "everybody believed we
had the copyrights, including Novell, and they are certainly as
surprised as we are that they _did_ retain them", but you never know
with them.

However, what they still want to see the judge decide is whether they
_should_ get the copyrights.

From Groklaw:

Update 5: And now we hear from SCO's attorney, Stuart Singer, that
SCO will ask the judge to give them the copyrights, despite the
jury's verdict:

"Obviously, we're disappointed in the jury's decision," said SCO
trial lawyer Stuart H. Singer. "We were confident in the case,
but there's some important claims remaining to be decided by a
judge."

SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the
copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he
said. "It's a setback, but it's not over."

They really are inventive about keeping the mill rolling and the money
burning. And if they manage to annoy the judge enough to cause him to
omit dotting one i, pop, there goes the next round of appeal.

They'll manage to burn through all money until they have to declare
bankruptcy. Wait, they already did. And they _still_ manage to keep
burning through their creditors' money.

They really turn this into an art form.