Yahoo! SCOX Review

Message ID: 251227 Posted By: walterbyrd Posted On: 2005-03-29 20:37:00 Subject: scoxe isn't fishing Recs: 6 What a joke. It's surprising that at this late date anybody would even discuss such an idea. Scoxe is simply trying to harrass some $$ out of IBM. Scoxe knows there isn't any infringing code, everybody knows it. Including the Utah judges. Scoxe has sysV, and scoxe has had 5 years of AIX, for well over a year now. There is no evidence that scoxe has even attempted to look for anything. None. I have posted serveral times about the numerous outright lies told by scoxe, and the slam-dunk evidence that this entire case is nothing but a total scam from day one. Even with the Utah judges on scoxe's side, and msft backing scoxe up every step of the way; scoxe is still losing. Scoxe simply has no case. ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and dis...

Message ID: 248174 Posted By: karl_w_lewis Posted On: 2005-03-21 09:11:00 Subject: Silent Running... Recs: 0 I know it's a work day... and this SCAM needs to be watched, but I have to tell you I've watched all the conversational traffic about Ms. Kreidel, and all, and I am about as sickened as I know how to be. I'd be willing to be the first to admit that I have found this whole sorrid stock scam masquerading as a lawsuit to be fascinating, like a train wreck. Mr. Penrose's tragic suicide was a little over-the-top for my taste, and this latest news is really too horrific for words. I wonder if it's about money. I wonder if it's about scandal. I wonder if it is just a coincidental outbreak of mental illness. And I know, too, that the answers fall pretty clearly into the category of things that are none of my business. The families involved get nothing but sympathy from me in any case, (not that that does them any good at all, I know). ...

Message ID: 245225 Posted By: saltydogmn Posted On: 2005-03-11 23:13:00 Subject: Fsck off, Ralph Yarro. Recs: 2 You and your buddies call yourselves "devout Mormons". Really? Does the Mormon faith allow for scams like the one you're running with the SCO Group (SCOXE)? Over 2 years have elapsed, and all your side can do is delay, delay, delay. You have shown ZERO evidence, even after the court has told you to do so explicitly - TWICE - and everyone involved in the original contract negotiations has already debunked and voided every convoluted interpretation and theory your side has concocted. You have no case. You have no copyrights. You have no evidence. You have no standing in court. You do, however, thanks to your scheming ways, have a huge pile of soon-to-be-worthless shares of SCOXE. I hope you lose your big fat ass on them. Your fellow congregation members must be so proud of the way you manipulated the Noordas. On behalf of elderly people ...

Message ID: 243470 Posted By: walterbyrd Posted On: 2005-03-07 10:59:00 Subject: Lyons still far too kind to scoxe Recs: 0 Lyons portrays scoxe as incompetent, but not as dishonest. Also, in deference to overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Lyons also ridicules the idea that msft had a part in this. The obvious truth is that this has been a scam since the beginning, and msft is a huge part of the scam. At this point, how can Lyons possibly praise scoxe for anything other than being so-so scam artists? Lyons doesn't want to admit to a scam, so he calls scoxe a bunch of idiots. Even that is a turn around from what he was saying before. But Lyons is still putting a positive spin on the msft/scoxe scam. ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "walterbyrd" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonC...

Message ID: 241504 Posted By: saltydogmn Posted On: 2005-03-01 11:16:00 Subject: What would an SCO win cost them? Recs: 0 I was thinking about this the other day, and actually wondered aloud, why go through this whole scam thing? So you make a few bucks - quite a few, of course - screwing people out of their money. At what cost, though? Your company, SCOXE, is now the most hated tech company in the world, even more than Microsoft, who helped fund the scam in the first place. The cast of characters involved have lost any and all credibility in the business world, and it looks to me as if the only people they will be able to deal/work with, would be each other. Would you trust Darl enough to start another company with him? I am not generally an angry, bitter man, but I say this with complete sincerity; when this scam is finally terminated, I will be incredibly happy. When the perpetrators of this crime get sent up the river, I will be incredibly happy. If some of them...

Message ID: 241466 Posted By: karl_w_lewis Posted On: 2005-03-01 09:18:00 Subject: UNIX IP Recap... Recs: 0 So, there is no copyrighted UNIX code in Linux. But, since the SCOundrels mentioned it... let's review the situation briefly. 1) Originally UNIX code was not copyrighted - it was held as a Trade Secret. Eventually, the UNIX codebase lost that protection because AT&T failed to maintain the proper controls over who had access to those secrets. (It is a simple notion that if the information is publicly available it is [by definition] not a secret any longer.) 2) When AT&T moved to copyright their UNIX code, and attempted to enforce those copyrights in a [disasterous] lawsuit against The California Board of Regents in the infamous BSD case, the judge told AT&T that he doubted that the AT&T copyrights could be shown to be valid. Both parties, in an agreement that had been sealed until just recently, agreed that AT&T AND ITS SUCCESSORS ...

Message ID: 241351 Posted By: oojika1 Posted On: 2005-03-01 01:36:00 Subject: Existence of evidence doesn't matter Recs: 0 By now, SCO's case is a complete bust. Even if SCO somehow manages to come up with some infringing code, it cannot affect the outcome of any copyright claims. That's rather important, so I'd like to say it again a little louder. EVEN IF SCO SOMEHOW MANAGES TO COME UP WITH SOME INFRINGING CODE, IT CANNOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF ANY COPYRIGHT CLAIMS. For two reasons: 1. If and when any infringing code is revealed, it will be removed from Linux forever. Linux programmers are waiting to do exactly that. It will be removed within minutes, hours, days, or weeks, depending on how much code is identified. 2. In order to be awarded damaged in a case like this, the plaintiff must make an effort to mitigate those damages. In refusing to do this, SCO has forfeited its right to any damages. Whether it actually produces any offending code ...

Message ID: 241340 Posted By: crunchie812 Posted On: 2005-03-01 01:11:00 Subject: SCO Witholding Evidence Recs: 4 Darl McBride, the CEO whose mouth writes checks his ass can't cash, claimed in 2003 that he had enough evidence to go to trial, even without discovery. IBM has repeatedly asked for this evidence: the "mountains of code", "millions of lines", the identity of the "deep divers" and "MIT Rocket Scientists" doing "spectral analysis" and whatever else deep voodoo they used to conjure the "evidence" that the SCOG was showing to reporters, analysts, and prospective suckers. Gregory Blepp claimed at one point to have this evidence in his infamous briefcase. Blepp and brifcase have since fled the scene. Since day one the Linux community has repeated over and over: "SHOW US THE CODE!" But the SCOG has steadfastly refused to produce this "evidence". Why, because it never existed...