Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
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 PlaintiffÂ’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 hyro...@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 hyro...@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.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
RJack the stupid 1 wrote: 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. 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. Regards, rjack idiot! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
And verily, didst RJack u...@example.net hastily babble thusly: 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. 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. 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. -- | spi...@freenet.co,uk | Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky? | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | | |in| I think so brain, but this time, you control | | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice... | ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:22 +0100, spike1 wrote: 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 Registered Linux User #498581 CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:17:21 +, RonB wrote: Calera had early success as a desktop Linux Err... Caldera... with the d. -- RonB Registered Linux User #498581 CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
Alexander Terekhov wrote: 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 :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:18:05 + (UTC), RonB wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:17:21 +, RonB wrote: 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote: And verily, didst RJack u...@example.net hastily babble thusly: 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. 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. 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 :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
RJack wrote: [...] 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 hyro...@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 hyro...@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.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote: And verily, didst RJack u...@example.net hastily babble thusly: So what? Who gives a rat's ass? Not me. Why did you start the thread then? U. 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 :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
On 3/31/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote: 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! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:03:56 -0500, RJack wrote: U. 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. -- RonB Registered Linux User #498581 CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/31/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote: 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 :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
On 4/1/2010 11:55 AM, RJack wrote: 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
And verily, didst Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com hastily babble thusly: On 4/1/2010 11:55 AM, RJack wrote: 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. -- | spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a| | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit | |in|microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that| | Computer Science |can't stand 1 bit of competition. | ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
RJack u...@example.net writes: 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. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/1/2010 11:55 AM, RJack wrote: 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. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SCO moronic loss in Novell suit
David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 4/1/2010 11:55 AM, RJack wrote: 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 :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
