THERE IS NO SCOX CODE IN LINUX

Message ID: 182232
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-19 13:39:00
Subject: THERE IS NO SCOX CODE IN LINUX

... except for the willful Caldera contributions.

Biff is just presenting the illusion of argument, and in this case the illusion of confusion that PSJ would cover only IBM contributions. False as -

THE PSJ ABOUT TO BE GRANTED WILL COVER ALL OF LINUX AGAINST SCOX COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

But I think biff is here so that at some point in the future the execs using other people's money to manipulate the stock price on this coming week's pump & dump can point to this board and say, "well, we saw this argument on yahoo that said the PSJ probably wouldn't be granted, and would only cover IBM if it were, so we thought it might be a good investment".

But just for the record, THERE IS NO SCOX COPYRIGHTED CODE IN LINUX.

Prove me wrong if you can, biff!

-- TWZ

Message ID: 182547
Posted By: karl_w_lewis
Posted On: 2004-09-20 11:50:00
Subject: THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINUX

Just because, as PJ_f_P pointed out, it'd be good to fill the board with this subject line, from time to time.

KWL

By all means though, go back to bickering over Groklaw....

Message ID: 182554
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-09-20 12:02:00
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINU

In a couple of months, all the current claims of SCO will probably go out of its case & there will be new claims in their place, like the fraud claim that O'gara mentions. What will you do then, to "get people to focus" ?

Announce "IBM NEVER COMMITTED FRAUD" ?

Message ID: 182558
Posted By: peragirn
Posted On: 2004-09-20 12:05:00
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINU

SCO dropping all other claims againist IBm, is suddenly Liable to Autozone, Red Hat, Novell, and DCC for fraudlent statements.

SCO will have less than 12 million dollars to pay those people.

A fraud case is not and will not ever come up because SCO is poor

Message ID: 182589
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-09-20 12:40:00
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINU

< SCO dropping all other claims againist IBm, is suddenly Liable to Autozone, Red Hat, Novell, and DCC for fraudlent statements.

SCO will have less than 12 million dollars to pay those people.

A fraud case is not and will not ever come up because SCO is poor >

I am thinking more on the lines of Judge granting IBM motions for PSJ's, not SCO dropping the charges. I don't think SCO will be liable to other parties in that case, but even if they were, those lawsuits will take their own sweet time.

The fraud charges can be added easily enough. Didn't the SCO legal team agree to a different kind of compensation?

Message ID: 182596
Posted By: karl_w_lewis
Posted On: 2004-09-20 12:47:00
Subject: Re:THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINUX

>> The fraud charges can be added easily enough.<<

Not to be argumentative, but no, to charge IBM with fraud at this time would be a major problem. IANAL, but I'm thinking they might have to institute an entirely new lawsuit. They have already passed the last day for modifying their filings. (And, naturally, they filed to amend their complaint. IBM didn't oppose that time, but I'm thinking that trend is over.) I'm thinking that to come up with a new cause of action would put them in a whole world of hurt.

As I say, though, IANAL, so I could be all wrong.

KKWL

Message ID: 182599
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-20 12:52:00
Subject: Re:THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINUX

Nor am I a lawyer, but I believe you're right that they cannot add to the current case but could file a new case. But the two most likely events therefrom would be a procedural dismissal that it should have been brought in the present case or a stay until the present case is disposed.

Of course our pals at SCOX would file in state, IBM would remand to fed, which SCOX would fight, spinning like a gyroscope the whole time.

-- TWZ

Message ID: 182602
Posted By: peragirn
Posted On: 2004-09-20 12:55:00
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINU

>> Didn't the SCO legal team agree to a different kind of compensation?<<

By the end of 2005 SCO will have paid out a final 31 million dollars to boise to finish all exsiting litigation to the end. It's to late for SCO to change it's charges once again.

After that SCO will either need to pay boise again, or retian another lawyer.

In order to bring those charges about though, SCO will have to petition this court to unseal documents. And only those documents which SCO wants. What happens says yes but only if you unseal all documents. Can you imagine what SCO has said??? If IBM is guilty of fraud SCO is even more so.

SCO simply doesn't have that kind of time or money anymore. To top it all off most people are wondering what it was about in the begining.

Message ID: 182611
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2004-09-20 13:02:00
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE IN LINU

< SCO simply doesn't have that kind of time or money anymore.>

I have assumed that adding a new charge to the existing case will qualify as 'existing litigation'. It looks to me like they started talking about the fraud claim because their current claims are in danger. Time will tell.

Message ID: 183380
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-21 18:04:00
Subject: NO SCOX SYSV/NO LINUX INFRINGEMT

Rather than explain away just answer, biff:

Does SCOX have certain knowledge of ownership to SysV copyrights other than those owned by Santa Cruz prior to the USL sale to Novell?

Is there any SCOX copyrighted material in Linux other than Caldera's willful contributions?

Until you are willing to positively make those assertions your questions are meaningless.

-- TWZ

Message ID: 184364
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-23 12:28:00
Subject: NO SCOX SYSV/NO LINUX INFRINGEMT

Just so any passing traders know how the court cases appear to be going -

SCOX does not own SysV copyright.

There is no code in Linux infringing the copyrights they don't have anyway.

-- TWZ

Message ID: 185040
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-24 14:14:00
Subject: NO SCOX SYSV/NO LINUX INFRINGEMT

Just my reminder for any passing traders

From what we gather from the court records and publically revealed info:

SCOX does not own the SysV copyrights.

Linux does not infringe upon any SysV code even if SCOX did own them.

-- TWZ

Message ID: 186851
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-29 15:55:00
Subject: NO SCOX SYSV/NO LINUX INFRINGEMT

Just the regular reminder

It appears that

THERE IS NO SYSV INFRINGEMENT IN LINUX

and

SCOX DOES NOT OWN SYSV COPYRIGHTS ANYWAY.

-- TWZ

Message ID: 187239
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2004-09-30 11:41:00
Subject: NO SCOX SYSV/NO LINUX INFRINGEMT

SCOX is very likely to lose PSJ to IBM because:

THERE IS NO SYSV INFRINGEMENT IN LINUX

according to numerous analyses and SCOX's failure to document **ANY** code

and

SCOX DOESN'T OWN SYSV COPYRIGHT ANYWAY

from what we infer from Judge Kimball's SCOX v Novell ruling.

(regular reminder for any passing traders)
-- TWZ

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "ColonelZen", "karl_w_lewis", "deepdistrust", "peragirn" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.