Hello Dear Friends:

An interesting read for all those who wish to acquaint themselves with some
reasonable analysis.

Now They Own It, Now They Don't: SCO Sues Novell to Stay Afloat
http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/0...id=137&tid=147

Professor Moglen IS a lawyer and a professor of intellectual property law -
that should negate some of the "Tony the Tuna" factor so prevalent in this
newsgroup.

I love the first line of the article:

<quote>
The SCO licensing campaign--which has been all bark and no bite since its
introduction by way of threatening letters to the Fortune 1500 last
summer--lost a wheel last month, and is now headed for the wall.
</quote>

<VBG>

Anybody read the IBM submitted list of deficiencies from The SCO Group's
*Court* *Ordered* submissions?

<IBM's Letter on What SCO Failed to Produce>
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40210092209638

Now I know Tony the Tuna thinks "Groklaw is trash" but read the letter
anyway because it is a verbatim copy of a court filed document.

Just for fun, I have been reading some of the individual submissions on
Groklaw just to see if Tony the Tuna may have a point. For the most part, I
find the dialog to be informed and interesting although there are a few
uninformed and obvious trollbait responses. Not quite the rabid band of
code thieves Tony the Tuna has misrepresented - but of course, Tony is
consumed with jealousy over Groklaw's sudden fame and fortune.

For those of you too lazy/busy to read through all the details of last
Fridays hearings, allow me to summarize what I think the case will pivot
on.

SCO has failed to produce evidence of SCO Trade Secrets in Linux.
SCO has failed to produce evidence of proprietary SysV code in Linux.
SCO has failed to produce evidence of proprietary SysV code in AIX that has
migrated into Linux.

Here is the present crux of the SCO argument: IBM created additional
enhancements and functions for AIX and has ported some of those functions
into Linux. SCO does *NOT* claim ownership or proprietary rights to this
code BUT SCO says that is not allowed by some unique interpretation of the
term "derivative".

Unfortunately, the term "derivative" is directly addressed by copyright law
AND has been further reinforced in a number of software copyright lawsuits.

In other words, SCO must convince the court that it's interpretation of the
term "derivative" is right and that the legislation and caselaw is all
wrong!

Opps!

IBM is skillfully maneuvering SCO to make that admission and then they are
going to drop the axe!

Goodbye SCO!
Goodbye Darl!
Goodbye Blake!
Goodbye Chris!

Incidently, to say that Judge Wells was less than impressed with SCO's lack
of compliance with the Dec 6 court order would be an understatement. IMHO
Judge Wells is going to grant SCO one last opportunity to fullfill it's
court ordered obligations. She may also grant a limited discovery of IBM
but not the entire world of IBM AIX that they are asking for - especially
in view of SCO's miserable state of compliance.

Of course, Tony the Tuna will totally ignore the growing pool of evidence
and state stoicly that "SCO may have a case" and "SCO may win even if they
don't have a case" - such is the clueless nature of Tony the Tuna.

I will personally rejoice when IBM finally drives a stake into the heart of
The SCO Group!

Best regards,

Brian

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:

>Just for fun, I have been reading some of the individual submissions on
>Groklaw just to see if Tony the Tuna may have a point. For the most part, I
>find the dialog to be informed and interesting although there are a few
>uninformed and obvious trollbait responses. Not quite the rabid band of
>code thieves Tony the Tuna has misrepresented - but of course, Tony is
>consumed with jealousy over Groklaw's sudden fame and fortune.

Again, lying. Have you know shame? First, I have never taken the position
that Linux programmers are a rabid band of code thieves, and secondly
I am not in competition with GrokLaw so have no reason to be jealous
(nor is jealousy any part of my nature).

You are an amazing liar, Brian. How do you sleep at night?

--
tony@pcunix.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>Hello Dear Friends:

>An interesting read for all those who wish to acquaint themselves with some
>reasonable analysis.

>Now They Own It, Now They Don't: SCO Sues Novell to Stay Afloat
>http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/0...id=137&tid=147

>Professor Moglen IS a lawyer and a professor of intellectual property law -
>that should negate some of the "Tony the Tuna" factor so prevalent in this
>newsgroup.

>I love the first line of the article:

><quote>
>The SCO licensing campaign--which has been all bark and no bite since its
>introduction by way of threatening letters to the Fortune 1500 last
>summer--lost a wheel last month, and is now headed for the wall.
></quote>

Let's hope it's true. However, as all the people who aren't brainless
fools know, it's not over till it's over.


--
tony@pcunix.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

tony@pcunix.com wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>><quote>
>>The SCO licensing campaign--which has been all bark and no bite since its
>>introduction by way of threatening letters to the Fortune 1500 last
>>summer--lost a wheel last month, and is now headed for the wall.
>></quote>

> Let's hope it's true. However, as all the people who aren't brainless
> fools know, it's not over till it's over.

That's an interesting statement, coming from you.

You see, I have been saying all along that there was no proprietary SysV
code in Linux and you said "wait and see". Well we waited and we have seen
that SCO has failed to provide any evidence of SysV code in Linux.

I knew this because I know how the Linux kernel is developed. I also know
that Caldera and SCO both contributed to the Linux kernel over the years
and therefore their claim that certain undisclosed "trade secrets" found
their way into the Linux kernel tree without their knowledge was also total
"bull droppings"! And lastly, I know that their arguments against the GPL
are totally without merit and that SCO has deliberately misrepresented both
the GPL and any rational interpretation of copyright law.

It's funny that everything I have predicted has come true so far and yet you
continue to hold forth some hope for the SCO case.

Tell me Tony, on what evidence or secret body of knowledge are you depending
on to support such hope? Are you supposing a complete collapse of the
copyright system or the chance of some bizarre ruling by Judge Wells?

Can you truly not see where this case is heading? Are you really that thick?

Just curious.

Brian

tony@pcunix.com wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>Just for fun, I have been reading some of the individual submissions on
>>Groklaw just to see if Tony the Tuna may have a point. For the most part,
>>I find the dialog to be informed and interesting although there are a few
>>uninformed and obvious trollbait responses. Not quite the rabid band of
>>code thieves Tony the Tuna has misrepresented - but of course, Tony is
>>consumed with jealousy over Groklaw's sudden fame and fortune.

> You are an amazing liar, Brian. How do you sleep at night?

Oh please Tony, you are going to make me cry!

Do you truly wish me to provide line by line evidence of your stated
opinions concerning Groklaw and it's contributers?

If I do, will you make a short avi of you dancing around wearing a sign
saying "Tony the Tuna" - say 10 seconds?

8^)

Brian

"Brian" <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote in message
news:CS7Wb.463988$ts4.169954@pd7tw3no...
> Hello Dear Friends:
>
> An interesting read for all those who wish to acquaint
themselves with some
> reasonable analysis.
>
> Now They Own It, Now They Don't: SCO Sues Novell to Stay Afloat
> http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/0...id=137&tid=147
>
> Professor Moglen IS a lawyer and a professor of intellectual
property law -
> that should negate some of the "Tony the Tuna" factor so
prevalent in this
> newsgroup.

Yes, and professor Moglen has absolutely no vested interest in
this case. He is the general counsel for the Free Software
Foundation and certainly has a lot to lose if SCO wins, at least
from the credibility standpoint. I don't like what SCO is doing
and I seriously doubt they have any chance, but Moglen is about
as objective on this issue as SCO's lawyers are.

Plus, you should really lay off Tony. I am 99.999999999% sure
that SCO is going to lose but with out seeing all the evidence
first hand, it is not wise to say with 100% certainty that SCO is
going to lose. Plus, you are not taking into account the level
of technical knowledge of a majority of the public. If this goes
to jury, it is a very good bet that the jury will not have the
technical knowledge to make an informed decision.

Can't you just present your information without insulting people.
You catch a lot more bees with honey than vinegar.

Justin

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>tony@pcunix.com wrote:
>> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>><quote>
>>>The SCO licensing campaign--which has been all bark and no bite since its
>>>introduction by way of threatening letters to the Fortune 1500 last
>>>summer--lost a wheel last month, and is now headed for the wall.
>>></quote>

>> Let's hope it's true. However, as all the people who aren't brainless
>> fools know, it's not over till it's over.

>That's an interesting statement, coming from you.

Why? Since day one, I have said that I want SCO to lose this -
whether they are right or wrong.

>You see, I have been saying all along that there was no proprietary SysV
>code in Linux and you said "wait and see". Well we waited and we have seen
>that SCO has failed to provide any evidence of SysV code in Linux.

As usual, you are flat out lying about what I have said.

>It's funny that everything I have predicted has come true so far and yet you
>continue to hold forth some hope for the SCO case.

I am NOT holding forth hope - well, I am but it's hope that they lose,
not win.

>Tell me Tony, on what evidence or secret body of knowledge are you depending
>on to support such hope? Are you supposing a complete collapse of the
>copyright system or the chance of some bizarre ruling by Judge Wells?

How many times do we have to go over the same ground? I'm not
doing it again.

>Can you truly not see where this case is heading? Are you really that thick?

I have every hope that the case is heading in the direction that you say.
Very simply, I'm a realist: SCO CAN win, whether we like it or not. That's
all this moronically stupid back and forth has been about: your stubborn
refusal to imagine any other outcome.

I call that stupid, Brian. No one has all the facts here, but you sound
like someone who would bet their life savings on SCO losing. I wouldn't,
because stupid, stupid things can happen.

Feel free to post back with your usual lies and misrepresentations. It
paints a lovely picture of you.

--
tony@pcunix.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>tony@pcunix.com wrote:
>> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>>Just for fun, I have been reading some of the individual submissions on
>>>Groklaw just to see if Tony the Tuna may have a point. For the most part,
>>>I find the dialog to be informed and interesting although there are a few
>>>uninformed and obvious trollbait responses. Not quite the rabid band of
>>>code thieves Tony the Tuna has misrepresented - but of course, Tony is
>>>consumed with jealousy over Groklaw's sudden fame and fortune.

>> You are an amazing liar, Brian. How do you sleep at night?

>Oh please Tony, you are going to make me cry!

>Do you truly wish me to provide line by line evidence of your stated
>opinions concerning Groklaw and it's contributers?

Go ahead: you'll find that I have stated that GrokLaw as a whole is
trash because of the posters like you there. That's not jealously,
just a simple evaluation. Trash, not because of PJ, but because
of people like you. Get it?

>If I do, will you make a short avi of you dancing around wearing a sign
>saying "Tony the Tuna" - say 10 seconds?

You never did answer: how old are you?

--
tony@pcunix.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Justin Robbs wrote:
> "Brian" <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote in message
>> Professor Moglen IS a lawyer and a professor of intellectual
>> property law - that should negate some of the "Tony the Tuna"
>> factor so prevalent in this newsgroup.

> Yes, and professor Moglen has absolutely no vested interest in
> this case. He is the general counsel for the Free Software
> Foundation and certainly has a lot to lose if SCO wins, at least
> from the credibility standpoint.

Really?

Professor Moglen donates his time to the free software foundation and is one
of the people who has worked hard to preserve the integrity of the GPL and
ancillary licensing rights associated with open source.

Just what has <new> SCO or their lawyers every done for free?

> I don't like what SCO is doing and I seriously doubt they have
> any chance, but Moglen is about as objective on this issue as
> SCO's lawyers are.

I consider Moglen to be much more credible than any of the paid hacks
working for SCO.

Are you not aware that SCO is getting shit-kicked in court by IBM lawyers?

> Plus, you should really lay off Tony.

I will take that under advisement.

....

No.

> I am 99.999999999% sure that SCO is going to lose but with out seeing all
> the evidence first hand, it is not wise to say with 100% certainty that
> SCO is going to lose.

I didn't say SCO was going to lose, I said it wouldn't win. You see, this
case is never going to see the light of day. It will die in a sea of
motions that will strip it to the bone and then toss the bone to the dogs.

SCO has never had a case and the law suit was only for the purpose of
creating a sale for SCO.

SCO's case is even now being ripped to bits - what have they got left?

> Plus, you are not taking into account the level of technical knowledge of
> a majority of the public. If this goes to jury, it is a very good bet
> that the jury will not have the technical knowledge to make an informed
> decision.

As anybody that has had ANY real experience with jury trials will tell you,
the jury is very carefully instructed and controlled by the Judge,
especially in technical cases such as this.

Jurys that go mustang are always overturned.

> Can't you just present your information without insulting people.

I could but Tony has made a number of statements about me and Linux users in
general that have totally pissed me off so I *Choose* to highlight his
deficiencies.

> You catch a lot more bees with honey than vinegar.

Not interested in bees, but thanks for the tip.

Best regards,

Brian

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>Justin Robbs wrote:
>> "Brian" <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote in message
>>> Professor Moglen IS a lawyer and a professor of intellectual
>>> property law - that should negate some of the "Tony the Tuna"
>>> factor so prevalent in this newsgroup.

>> Yes, and professor Moglen has absolutely no vested interest in
>> this case. He is the general counsel for the Free Software
>> Foundation and certainly has a lot to lose if SCO wins, at least
>> from the credibility standpoint.

>Really?

>Professor Moglen donates his time to the free software foundation and is one
>of the people who has worked hard to preserve the integrity of the GPL and
>ancillary licensing rights associated with open source.

>Just what has <new> SCO or their lawyers every done for free?


What has THAT to do with the professor's bias?

>> I don't like what SCO is doing and I seriously doubt they have
>> any chance, but Moglen is about as objective on this issue as
>> SCO's lawyers are.

>I consider Moglen to be much more credible than any of the paid hacks
>working for SCO.

Well, duh. But that doesn't make him right.

>I didn't say SCO was going to lose, I said it wouldn't win. You see, this
>case is never going to see the light of day. It will die in a sea of
>motions that will strip it to the bone and then toss the bone to the dogs.

Well, I'd rather see them lose. Fading away doesn't have quite the
same effect for the next attempt.

>> Plus, you are not taking into account the level of technical knowledge of
>> a majority of the public. If this goes to jury, it is a very good bet
>> that the jury will not have the technical knowledge to make an informed
>> decision.

>As anybody that has had ANY real experience with jury trials will tell you,
>the jury is very carefully instructed and controlled by the Judge,
>especially in technical cases such as this.

Oh, gawd. You are VERY wet behind the ears, aren't you? Ever actually
been on a jury, son?

>I could but Tony has made a number of statements about me and Linux users in
>general that have totally pissed me off so I *Choose* to highlight his
>deficiencies.

Such as? Such as that Linux Loosers like you make a bad name for
the Linux community?

You do.

--
tony@pcunix.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html