Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

amicus_curious says SCO don't give a fig about Linux

  • Subject: amicus_curious says SCO don't give a fig about Linux
  • From: Robert Newson <ReapNewsB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:59:45 GMT
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • References: <5741567.sPzL39ZcT7@schestowitz.com> <1176736626.792786.172950@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <4623b67f$0$14684$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:515005
Nice to see you're still around; however, I'm still waiting for your explaination of this:
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
amicus_curious wrote:
...
>>> I don't think that you have a good grasp of the issues in the IBM/SCO
>>> case. They do not care a fig for Linux or what happens to Linux or even
>>> whether or not they are damaged by Linux.
>>>
>> Really? If SCO doesn't care a fig for, or about what happens to, or if
>> they're damaged by Linux, perhaps you'd like to comment on these:
>>
> (lots of irrelevant Groklaw snipped)
>
> Well until Groklaw can satisfy the world that it is not just a paid for
> shill working for IBM and Novell, what is posted there is not very
> credible to begin with, so there is no need to waste any time answering
> it...


Fine, if SCO don't care a fig about Linux, perhaps you'd like to comment on these then:

``LinuxTag has accused SCO of illegal anti-competitive practices in a warning letter dated Friday, May 23 referring to SCO's unsubstantiated allegations that Linux contains SCO's (unspecified) proprietary code.''
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=9679


``Two Polish Linux companies have issued notices to the SCO Group...
``The CEOs of CYBER Service and IT Zone demanded that SCO stop claiming there was illegal code in the Linux kernel without any proof.
``They also said SCO should stop telling other companies not to use Linux in their solutions and that it should publish a declaration saying that Linux is legal in Poland.''
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010962786.html


``In a media release...the SCO Group...said Linux contained code which it claims as its intellectual property.''
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/15/1052885324252.html


``3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called ?Linux.?? Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods, particularly as related to enterprise computing methods found in Linux 2.4.x releases and the current development kernel, Linux 2.5.x.? Significantly, Linux is distributed without a licensing fee and without proprietary rights of ownership or confidentiality.''
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-25.html


``SAN FRANCISCO--August 4, 2003--Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT) today made two significant announcements to protect Red Hat Linux customers and the worldwide Linux industry. First, Red Hat announced that it filed a formal complaint against The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX, "SCO"). The purpose of this complaint is to demonstrate that Red Hat's technologies do not infringe any intellectual property of SCO and to hold SCO accountable for its unfair and deceptive actions.
``"We filed this complaint to stop SCO from making unsubstantiated and untrue public statements attacking Red Hat Linux...''
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2003/press_sco.html


[And not a Groklaw link in sight ^_^]

----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
And also a reply to this:
  ..ooO0Ooo..  ..ooO0Ooo..  ..ooO0Ooo..  ..ooO0Ooo..  ..ooO0Ooo..
amicus_curious wrote:
...
> I don't think that you have a good grasp of the issues in the IBM/SCO
> case. They do not care a fig for Linux or what happens to Linux or even
> whether or not they are damaged by Linux.

Really?  Perhaps you'd like to comment on this:

----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
10 West Broadway,
Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah
84101
Telephone:  (801) 363-6363
Facsimile:  (801) 363-6666

David Boies
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York
10504
Telephone:  (914) 749-8200
Facsimile:  (914) 749-8300

Stephen N. Zack (Florida Bar No.  145215)
Mark J. Heise ( Florida Bar No. 771090)

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

100 Southeast Second Street
Suite 2800
Miami, Florida
33131
Telephone:  (305) 539-8400
Facsimile:  (305) 539-1307

Attorneys for Plaintiff Caldera Systems, Inc. d/b/a The SCO Group

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF UTAH
CALDERA SYSTEMS, INC.,

a Delaware corporation d/b/a THE SCO GROUP,

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.
COMPLAINT
...
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. §13-24-1 et seq
...
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition)
...
118. In furtherance of its scheme of unfair competition, IBM has engaged in the following conduct:
...
d) Contribution of trade secret protected software code for incorporation into one or more Linux...
119. IBM's unfair competition has directly and/or proximately caused significant foreseeable and consequential harm to plaintiff in the following particulars:


a) Plaintiff's revenue stream from UNIX licenses for Intel-based processing platforms has decreased substantially;
...
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Interference with Contract)
...
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
...
Plaintiff's address:


355 South 520 West

Lindon, Utah 84042

----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
URL: http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html

Who owns www.thescogroup.com (132.147.63.12)?  Lets see:

OrgName:    The SCO Group, Inc.
OrgID:      THESC-8
Address:    355 South 520 West
Address:    Suite 100
City:       Lindon
StateProv:  UT
PostalCode: 84042
Country:    US

NetRange:   132.147.0.0 - 132.147.255.255

So that's an SCO document (in fact, it's the complaint filed with the court) - let's get it straight from the Horse's mouth, not a paid IBM shill...

Please explain 118(d), 119(a) in light of your assertion of "They do not care a fig for Linux or what happens to Linux or even whether or not they are damaged by Linux." 'Cos it sure don't look like they don't care a fig - especially about being damaged by Linux.

If, as you assert, SCO don't care a fig about Linux, have they lied to the court?


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index