From: brian at english-bay.com (Brian)
Date: Tue Sep 28 22:00:22 2004
Subject: Information of interest...
Message-ID: <05r6d.557121$gE.523038@pd7tw3no>
Hello Dear Friends:
I acknowledge that it can be burdensome to wade through legal documents and
dialogue - I wish to present some incite into the SCO v IBM case for your
information.
Tony need not read any further.
This is some of the transcript of the Sept 23rd hearing where many issues
were put before the court. Let me just start with Mr. Marriott for IBM.
Here he itemizing some of SCO's more provocative public statements.
<quote>
MR. MARRIOTT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
The first point I want to make is that despite its public accusations of
infringement by IBM, SCO hasn't produced any evidence of copyright
infringement by IBM or anyone else with respect to Linux. The summary
judgment, Your Honor, as you know, is appropriate unless SCO can
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to two things; that it owns
valid copyrights and that IBM has copied protectable elements of those
copyrights. With the Court's permission, I would like to hand up, if I may,
a little booklet.
THE COURT: Sure, as long as everyone gets it.
MR. MARRIOTT: Your Honor, from the beginning of this case, SCO has publicly
claimed that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of UNIX and that the
use of Linux by anybody infringes SCO's alleged copyrights. And with
respect to IBM in particular, SCO has claimed that IBM is responsible for
dumping SCO's allegedly proprietary UNIX code into the Linux operating
system.
SCO has represented that in press releases. It has sent letters to the
Fortune 1000 companies, and it has sent letters to every member or Congress
making the point. It has basically told the world, Your Honor, that if you
use Linux, you have infringed SCO's alleged copyrights. And we have
provided a listing of those allegations for Your Honor at pages 2 through 4
of our book, and I won't repeat those here.
>From the beginning of the case, Your Honor, SCO has publicly claimed to have
substantial evidence to support its allegations of copyright infringement.
Its CEO is on record as saying that it has done a deep dive into the Linux
code, that it has compared Linux to UNIX every* which way but Tuesday, and
it has found substantial evidence of copyright infringement. And if I may
refer the Court to pages 5 through 7 of our book, I would like to focus,
Your Honor, if I may, on a couple of those.
In April or 2000 the company SCO said, "We are using objective third parties
to do comparisons of our UNIX System V* source code."
In May or 2003, SCO said that it had hired outside consultants to compare
source code from the Linux kernel to its System V* source code and that
those experts had found line-for-line copying. May of 2003, it said that
over the past several weeks, it had three different teams of people from
outside SCO going through various distributions or Linux and comparing the
code to its System V* code and that what those individuals had been
finding, Your Honor, is that there were chunks of code from SCO's UNIX
System V* in Linux.
At page 6, they said that in June, 2003, that they had hired three teams of
experts, including from the MIT Math Department, that they analyzed UNIX
and Linux and that they had, quote, all three found several instances where
a UNIX source code had been found in Linux, close quote.
In June of 2003, the company's CEO said, quote, "Everybody has been
clamoring for the code. Show us two lines of code. We're not going to show
two lines of code, we're going to show hundreds of lines of code. And
that's just the tip of iceberg of what's in this."
In August of 2003, the company said that it had retained pattern recognition
experts who had already, quote, "found mountains of code".
The same month, Your Honor, they said that they knew exactly which version
of UNIX System V* the code came from and which licensee was responsible for
illegally contributing to Linux.
Finally, on page 7, in November of 2003, the company's CEO said, quote,
"Along the way, over the past several months, once we had the copyright
issue resolved where fully we had clarity around the copyright ownership on
UNIX and System V* source code, we have gone in and done a deep dive into
Linux. We have compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way
but Tuesday. We have come out with a number of violations that relate to
those copyrights."
November of 2003, Your Honor, again the company said, quote, "There are
other literal copyright infringements that we've not provided. We'll save
those for court,".
And then, finally, and most recently, the company said to the Red Hat court
that it had discovered significant instances of line-for-line,
substantially similar copying of code from UNIX System V* to Linux.
It was in light of those allegations, Your Honor, that IBM propounded its
Interrogatory Numbers 12 and 13. And you will see those at page 8 of our
book. Those requests, I think, quite clearly ask, simply, that SCO
substantiate its allegations, its public allegations, of wrongdoing by IBM.
Interrogatory Number 12 says, "Please identify the material in Linux which
plaintiff has rights to and the nature of plaintiff's rights."
And then Interrogatory Number 13, Your Honor, says, "Please state whether a)
IBM has infringed plaintiff's rights and, for any rights IBM is alleged to
have infringed, describe in detail how IBM is alleged to have infringed
plaintiff's rights."
SCO repeatedly declined to respond to those interrogatories, Your Honor. At
no point did it disclose the copyrights we were alleged to have infringed.
At no point did it disclose a single line of UNIX code which we were
alleged to have infringed, and at no point did it disclose a single line of
allegedly infringed Linux code.
It was against that backdrop that we made our position Motion to Compel to
Magistrate Judge Wells. We asked Judge Wells to require SCO to provide
complete and full and detailed responses to those interrogatories. And
Magistrate Judge Wells did that. If you will look at the next page of the
book, Your Honor, you will see that in a December 12 Order, Magistrate
Judge Wells ordered SCO to, quote, "respond fully and in detail to
Interrogatory Numbers 12 and 13, as stated in IBM's Second Set of
Interrogatories".
SCO didn't provide the information called for by those interrogatories, Your
Honor. It didn't identify the copyright we were alleged to have infringed,
and it didn't identify a line of allegedly infringing UNIX System V* code,
and it didn't identify any allegedly infringing Linux code. We approached
Magistrate Judge Wells and asked again for an order requiring SCO to
provide the information we requested. And, again, this time on March 3,
Magistrate Judge Wells ordered SCO again to comply.
In this connection, by the way, Your Honor, she indicated that SCO, by this
time, had provided enough discovery with respect to IBM's other claims that
she found good faith sufficient to lift the stay, which she had sua* sponte
imposed, because SCO had failed to comply with IBM's discovery requests.
Nevertheless, that same day, she enters another order ordering SCO to
provide responses to Interrogatory Numbers 12 and 13. And, again, Your
Honor, SCO did not provide answers to IBM's Interrogatory Numbers 12 and
13. To this day, we do not have responses to those interrogatories which
indicate which copyright we supposedly infringed, which lines of code in
UNIX are supposedly infringed, and which code in Linux is the allegedly
infringing code.
Now, why is that the case, Your Honor? That is the case, we respectfully
submit, because SCO has no evidence whatever that IBM's Linux activities,
the copying and the distribution of Linux, infringe SCO's alleged
copyrights.
<end quote>
Wow, makes you want to keep on reading, doesn't it.
You will be disappointed because SCO's attorneys are AWFUL! Especially that
butt kissing slimeball Hatch.
Stay tuned for further interesting quotes.
Brian
From: brian at english-bay.com (Brian)
Date: Tue Sep 28 22:30:18 2004
Subject: Htach speaks...
Message-ID: <zwr6d.538630$M95.412615@pd7tw1no>
Hello Dear Friends:
I wish to present some dialogue of Mr. Hatch, speaking for SCO on the Sept
15th hearing.
<Qote>
MR. HATCH: Thank you very much, Your Honor. At the beginning of the hearing
today, Your Honor, I raised issues regarding discovery, and I want to raise
those again in the following context: What we -- a lot of Mr. Marriott's
argument that we just heard was very good, very polished, in the following
way: It's now about the third or fourth time we've heard all of that. The
problem is that we heard a little bit of it in front of you the last time
we were here. We have heard it repeatedly over the course of several
hearings in front of Magistrate Judge Wells. Regrettably, and I think that
was part of our frustration that caused me to raise the issue at the
beginning of this hearing, and also was the cause of the pleading, the
Emergency Expedited pleading that we filed just recently before Your Honor,
was that these matters -- and this really kind of, I think, shows the
danger of going forward on summary judgment motions of this type this early
-- at this stage in the case, let's say.
THE COURT: Well, but he says with respect to this particular claim, you
claim what you had at the beginning, and all you have to do is compare
yours to what everybody can get.
MR. HATCH: Yeah. That's real nice, and I appreciate him saying that, but,
Your Honor . . .
THE COURT: He read your client's public statements about that.
MR. HATCH: Well, and I'm going to address those in a few minutes because I
think, one, he mischaracterizes those quite a bit. And, you know, I really
view this as somewhat akin to -- if this were the legal principle going
forward, it would be really a defendant's bonanza, because what essentially
they are saying, at this stage of the game, is that you can have enough to
go forward and make your claims and push forward, but where the claims are
such that, in this instance IBM, but say it was a products liability case
before the -- a securities case, it could be the brokerage house, where the
defendant actually controls a good portion of the documents and
information, it would be real nice for defendants to be able to come in at
a preliminary stage, after they haven't given any discovery, and say, "Gee,
you can't show enough. We are out of here."
THE COURT: Well, but Unix is yours, and Linux everybody can get a hold of.
Isn't that right?
MR. HATCH: Well, no. It's somewhat disingenuous, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Show me how it's disingenuous.
MR. HATCH: Well, Mr. Frei is going to deal with that a little bit on the 5
(f), but let me at least put it short. This is why this is unfortunate
we're here arguing this now.
THE COURT: Well, but we are.
MR. HATCH We are. We expected that this would be argued yesterday so that we
would have the benefit of that argument and potentially Judge Wells' ruling
because we have now . . . what Mr. Marriott fails to mention is that we
have now, for the second time, renewed a motion to compel in front of Judge
Wells to get the information from them that they have repeatedly refused to
get us. Now they are saying, "Well, you refused to give us stuff." We are
saying, "You refused to give us stuff." And instead of arguing that either
in front of Judge Wells or in front of you -- and I'm happy to do it either
place, with the Judge who's deciding it having the benefit of the briefing
on the issue and understanding -- we have now argued this two or three
times in front of Judge Wells -- he now wants to do it in front of you
without the benefit of those briefs, without the benefit of the hearing
yesterday and say, "Give us summary judgment," when we can't even get,
after a year and a half, get predicate discovery out of IBM.
Now he wants you to just take it on good faith that -- "trust me, you know,
I'm a good defendant." And Mr. Marriott is a highest caliber lawyer. But
he's an advocate, and I don't think we put ourselves in a position where,
without briefing, without anything else, we come in and just say, "Trust
me, even though this matter is over in front of another judge and hasn't
gotten to you yet, which it may, and on that basis give us summary
judgment."
THE COURT: Well, the discovery matter is in front of the Magistrate Judge,
but the partial summary judgment matter is in front of me now, here.
MR. HATCH: I understand.
THE COURT: What is it you think you need?
</Quote>
It is interesting to note that IBM has submitted to SCO the source code of
every release of AIX and Dynix since 1999 as a result of a discovery order
by Judge Wells. That is in excess of 100s of millions of lines of source
code. What SCO wants is every interim release, no matter how trivial since
the beginning of the original contracts between AT&T and IBM. This amounts
to over two billion lines of source code.
Mr. Marriott has stated very clearly that not only has SCO claimed publicly
for over a year to have mountains of evidence but that they already have
everything they need to discover any copying from SysV to Linux. They Have
SysV source code and they have public access to Linux source code going
back to 1991 and version 1.0 - and here Judge Kimball is asking rather
sarcastically: "What is it you think you need?" I loved that part.
Mr. Marriott makes the point that SCO has failed to even provide a single
instance of alleged copyright infringement despite all their public claims
to the contrary.
Well, how about that!
Now, Tony the Tubesteak will tell us that this case is all about contracts
(not true of course) and he will further state that SCO may still win (also
not true).
More to come...
Brian
From: brian at english-bay.com (Brian)
Date: Tue Sep 28 23:00:22 2004
Subject: The killing thrust...
Message-ID: <g1s6d.538750$M95.348579@pd7tw1no>
Hello Dear Friends:
Here is Mr. Marriott summing up after SCO's replies.
<Quote>
MR. MARRIOTT: SCO makes a number of miscellaneous points, Your Honor. It
says that Magistrate Judge Wells found that SCO acted in good faith in
responding to IBM's discovery requests. Magistrate Judge Wells' commentary
with respect to good faith related only to the first order. It was made in
the context of her lifting a sua sponte order staying further discovery.
She never found that SCO acted in good faith in responding to IBM's 12th
and 13th Interrogatories, and you never heard anything from SCO this
afternoon about where in the record you will actually find the evidence
responsive to the interrogatories that could have possibly formed the basis
of a finding by Judge Wells that they acted in good faith in responding.
Mr. Hatch makes reference to the language, which I think of as a disclaimer
language, in which they say, "Magistrate Judge Wells, we have provided full
and complete and truthful answers based solely on the information that we
have available to us."
Well, Your Honor, the information available to SCO, as it relates to this
claim, has been available to SCO from the beginning, Linux and Unix. The
answers -- the supposed disclaimer -- that we are only doing the best that
we can doesn't hold water when it says it is based upon information in
their possession, and both Linux and Unix were in their possession.
Mr. Frei says that the comparisons referenced by IBM, Your Honor, were
comparisons done in 1999. It is true that the comparison done by --
referenced in the e-mail was done in 1999. If you look at the book we
provided Your Honor, on pages 5 through 7 you will see public statements by
SCO making reference to comparisons done well after 1999, done throughout
the course of this litigation.
SCO suggests, Your Honor, that the request IBM makes for summary judgment is
somehow inconsistent with the rules. They don't contemplate the entry of
summary judgment at this time. The only inconsistency here, Your Honor, is
not between IBM's motion and the rules but, instead, between the various
positions that SCO has taken in an effort to avoid the very thing Mr. Frei
suggests SCO wants, which is to be in front of a jury.
It says publicly that IBM has infringed its copyrights. It fails to point
the Court today to a single place in the record where there is evidence of
infringement. It says they have mountains, truck loads and icebergs of
evidence. Nowhere has that been referred to today in court. SCO says
publicly that it's eager to have its claims resolved, but it wants a stay,
apparently an indefinite stay, for purposes of taking additional discovery.
It tells the Red Hat court that the question of whether Linux infringes Unix
is in this Court in order to avoid dismissal of that case. And it tells
Your Honor that the claim is not in fact in this case, but it ought to be
in the AutoZone case.
It says publicly that it has three teams of experts doing a deep dive into
the code, comparing it every which way but Tuesday. It tells Your Honor
that it has [not]* retained experts to do copyright analysis,
notwithstanding the public statements about three teams of experts doing
the analysis.
It tells Your Honor it would take 25 thousand man-years just to do the
comparison of one, unless it has a road map. And the only road map offered,
Your Honor, is a road map that relates only to AIX and Dynix, most of which
you heard in SCO's recitation of the discovery that it needs and what it
would do with that discovery, that merely conflates SCO's contract claims
with its copyright claims.
All that matters here, Your Honor, is whether they can show ownership --
they haven't and they can't -- or whether they can show substantial
similarity, and they haven't and they can't. Thank you, Your Honor.
</Quote>
And a response from SCO:
<Quote>
THE COURT: Stand up and tell me about this motion.
MR. JAMES: We desperately -- we need some help, Your Honor.
</Quote>
I recommend divine intervention because SCO was gored in that courtroom that
day. IBM's lawyers were expert, precise and polished. SCO's lawyers were
boobs by comparison. They even tried the Wookie defense for all the good it
did them.
Can you imagine ALL the money SCO is spending on their defense for David
Boise and the guy has never showed up for a single hearing. SCO even got
Darl's brother to stand in on one hearing - was THAT ever a disaster.
I have picked passages that best reflect the rhythm of the hearing without
plodding through the dissection of cases and precedent. IBM ruled that
courtroom with style and grace whereas SCO was represented by The SCO
Stooges.
A decision should be forthcoming within the next 4 weeks.
It is about time for Tony to recommend another visit to his website so he
can collect another eight cents for a hit AND to remind everybody that He
is all for SCO losing but he really hates Groklaw because they have too
many different ideas and much too much thinking and dialogue.
Let us all now lockstep over to Tony's website: www.iamamindlessboob.com and
don't forget to hit the dick-grow advert - Tony says it really works.
Best regards,
Brian
From: pcunix at gmail.com (Tony Lawrence)
Date: Wed Sep 29 04:15:21 2004
Subject: The killing thrust...
In-Reply-To: <g1s6d.538750$M95.348579@pd7tw1no>
References: <g1s6d.538750$M95.348579@pd7tw1no>
Message-ID: <1096456052.329744.103370@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com>
Brian wrote:
> IBM ruled that courtroom with style and grace whereas SCO was
> represented by The SCO Stooges.
I doubt anyone is surprised.
However, you forget that incompetence doesn't mean that they
are wrong.
>
> A decision should be forthcoming within the next 4 weeks.
That would be wonderful. I hope you are right.
>
> It is about time for Tony to recommend another visit to his website
> so he can collect another eight cents for a hit AND to remind
> everybody that He is all for SCO losing but he really hates Groklaw
> because they have too many different ideas and much too much
> thinking and dialogue.
No, because they only have ONE idea and push it incessantly. There's
precious little thinking in that crowd.
And yes, I am all for SCO losing. More accurately, I want Linux left
unencumbered by copyrights and patents. Other than that, I don't care
a bit what happens to SCO or IBM here.
>
> Let us all now lockstep over to Tony's website:
> www.iamamindlessboob.com and don't forget to hit the dick-grow
> advert - Tony says it really works.
You got the link wrong - you must have stuck your website in by
mistake.
Are you so horribly unsuccesful and bitter that you have to
belittle someone like me who has managed to provide a useful
service and make some money from it? Despite your disparagement,
the fact is that aplawrence.com helps a lot of people every single
day. I don't claim that it is "the best" or even a great place for
the highly technical to hang out, but it is a place where ordinary
mortals can find help with a wide range of computer issues,
particularly in the Unix/Linux arena.
Get over it.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Wed Sep 29 11:00:07 2004
Subject: The killing thrust...
References: <g1s6d.538750$M95.348579@pd7tw1no>
<1096456052.329744.103370@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <REC6d.560715$gE.193602@pd7tw3no>
Tony Lawrence wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>> IBM ruled that courtroom with style and grace whereas SCO was
>> represented by The SCO Stooges.
> I doubt anyone is surprised.
Think about it Tony, think about ALL the money SCO is spending and to get
that kind of return is appalling!
I AM surprised!
> However, you forget that incompetence doesn't mean that they
> are wrong.
Oh, they are wrong alright. I have been saying for over a year that SCO had
no evidence of copying between SysV and the Linux kernel and guess what,
SCO has no evidence of copying between SysV and the Linux kernel.
>> A decision should be forthcoming within the next 4 weeks.
> That would be wonderful. I hope you are right.
The actual event was a hearing on four different but related motions.
The IBM Preliminary Summary Judgment on it's Counter Claim 10 is the most
interesting, in my opinion. I believe Judge Limball will rule on all four
at one time.
>> It is about time for Tony to recommend another visit to his website
>> so he can collect another eight cents for a hit AND to remind
>> everybody that He is all for SCO losing but he really hates Groklaw
>> because they have too many different ideas and much too much
>> thinking and dialogue.
> No, because they only have ONE idea and push it incessantly. There's
> precious little thinking in that crowd.
There are some excellent articles by lawyers, Unix/Linux experts and some
very well informed individuals.
But you are right Tony, they use a lot of big words there so you probably
won't be interested.
> And yes, I am all for SCO losing. More accurately, I want Linux left
> unencumbered by copyrights and patents.
I don't know what you mean Tony, the Linux kernel is copyrighted by many
different individuals - all their copyrights are licensed for use under the
GPL.
> Other than that, I don't care a bit what happens to SCO or IBM here.
I think you do, Tony.
>> Let us all now lockstep over to Tony's website:
>> www.iamamindlessboob.com and don't forget to hit the dick-grow
>> advert - Tony says it really works.
> You got the link wrong - you must have stuck your website in by
> mistake.
Is a joke Tony.
> Are you so horribly unsuccesful and bitter that you have to
> belittle someone like me who has managed to provide a useful
> service and make some money from it? Despite your disparagement,
> the fact is that aplawrence.com helps a lot of people every single
> day. I don't claim that it is "the best" or even a great place for
> the highly technical to hang out, but it is a place where ordinary
> mortals can find help with a wide range of computer issues,
> particularly in the Unix/Linux arena.
> Get over it.
You are such a sitting duck, Tony.
Brian
From: pcunix at gmail.com (Tony Lawrence)
Date: Thu Sep 30 13:00:22 2004
Subject: The killing thrust...
In-Reply-To: <REC6d.560715$gE.193602@pd7tw3no>
References: <g1s6d.538750$M95.348579@pd7tw1no>
<1096456052.329744.103370@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com>
<REC6d.560715$gE.193602@pd7tw3no>
Message-ID: <1096573469.477361.104520@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com>
Brian wrote:
> Tony Lawrence wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> >> IBM ruled that courtroom with style and grace whereas SCO was
> >> represented by The SCO Stooges.
>
> > I doubt anyone is surprised.
>
> Think about it Tony, think about ALL the money SCO is spending and to
get
> that kind of return is appalling!
>
> I AM surprised!
They've demonstrated incompetence since day one with that ridiculous
display of "stolen" BSD code. Why should it be any different now?
>
> > However, you forget that incompetence doesn't mean that they
> > are wrong.
>
> Oh, they are wrong alright. I have been saying for over a year that
SCO had
> no evidence of copying between SysV and the Linux kernel and guess
what,
> SCO has no evidence of copying between SysV and the Linux kernel.
Well, if they do, they sure as hell haven't shown it. But that wasn't
my point.
You carry on at great length about incompetence. That's fine, and I
certainly don't disagree, but it has nothing to do with the merits of
the case (if there are any). This is just childish foolish taunting
and ridicule. It may be deserved, but it has nothing to do with
whatever the facts are.
>
> There are some excellent articles by lawyers, Unix/Linux experts and
some
> very well informed individuals.
>
> But you are right Tony, they use a lot of big words there so you
probably
> won't be interested.
I'm not interested. Why should I be? I agree that SCO should have no
claim on Linux. I hope that the cases are settled with no damage to
Linux. I don't need to read opinions that I'm already in agreement
with. The stuff I disagree with - that SCO losing is an absolute lock
- is pointless : if someone is too stupid to understand that anything
is possible, why would I want to read what they write?
>
> > And yes, I am all for SCO losing. More accurately, I want Linux
left
> > unencumbered by copyrights and patents.
>
> I don't know what you mean Tony, the Linux kernel is copyrighted by
many
> different individuals - all their copyrights are licensed for use
under the
> GPL.
Sheesh! Unencumbered. The GPL copyrights are what makes Linux free
and of value. It's other parties claiming that Linux violates THEIR
copyrights that is the concern.
>
> > Other than that, I don't care a bit what happens to SCO or IBM
here.
>
> I think you do, Tony.
Of course you do. That's because you aren't smart enough to understand
someone who actually THINKS rather than joins in the roar of the crowd.
>
> >> Let us all now lockstep over to Tony's website:
> >> www.iamamindlessboob.com and don't forget to hit the dick-grow
> >> advert - Tony says it really works.
>
> > You got the link wrong - you must have stuck your website in by
> > mistake.
>
> Is a joke Tony.
Yeah, right, Brian. You are a jealous little toad. You've belittled
me and disparaged my website many times here. I resent it, and the
dozens of other folks who contribute to that site resent it too. They
and I are DOING something: we share what hard-won knowledge we have
with other people. I work hard, damn hard, at making that site the
very best that I can. I resent that a slimy little jackass like you
throws mud at it.
What do YOU do besides carp at people who disagree with you? If you
can do a better job than I and the other contributors do, we welcome
your comments and submissions.
Otherwsise, shut your useless yap.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
From: brian at stanley-park.com (Brian)
Date: Thu Sep 30 17:45:13 2004
Subject: The killing thrust...
References: <g1s6d.538750$M95.348579@pd7tw1no>
<1096456052.329744.103370@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com>
<REC6d.560715$gE.193602@pd7tw3no>
<1096573469.477361.104520@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <%C17d.553548$M95.169411@pd7tw1no>
Tony Lawrence wrote:
>> Tony Lawrence wrote:
>> > Brian wrote:
>> >> IBM ruled that courtroom with style and grace whereas SCO was
>> >> represented by The SCO Stooges.
>> > I doubt anyone is surprised.
>> Think about it Tony, think about ALL the money SCO is spending and to
> get
>> that kind of return is appalling!
Still haven't got that line break thing under control, eh Tony? It is a poor
workman that blames his tools.
>> I AM surprised!
> They've demonstrated incompetence since day one with that ridiculous
> display of "stolen" BSD code. Why should it be any different now?
Good point.
I guess we keep hearing about how things are going to be so different in
court then the perception in the real world that I keep expecting some
climatic display of competence and a wealth of evidence.
>> > However, you forget that incompetence doesn't mean that they
>> > are wrong.
Excuse me?
You see, I have READ the court transcripts, SCO has submitted no evidence of
SysV code in the Linux kernel. Further, SCO have submitted no evidence they
even own any copyrights to the Unix source code.
Also, IBM has delivered a fully briefed, evidenced and overwhelmingly
conclusive motion to get a Partial Summary Judgment on their counterclaim
against SCO of copyright infringement - in this case the evidence is a
bankers box filled with affidavits and exhibits of thousands of pages of
line by line copying by SCO of IBM's copyrighted code.
You see that is how you prove a copyright infringement case - with evidence
and qualified expert witnesses.
> You carry on at great length about incompetence. That's fine, and I
> certainly don't disagree, but it has nothing to do with the merits of
> the case (if there are any).
You would know something about the merits if you had taken the trouble to
read some of the court filings and transcripts.
But here you are, without a clue and still wishing to make stupid statements
like the one above.
The MERITS OF THE CASE, you moron, are there for ANYBODY with a room
temperature IQ and a pair of eyes to read with.
> This is just childish foolish taunting and ridicule. It may be deserved,
> but it has nothing to do with whatever the facts are.
That's three incredibly moronic statements in a single post - Gawd Tony, who
dresses you in the morning?
> I'm not interested. Why should I be? I agree that SCO should have no
> claim on Linux. I hope that the cases are settled with no damage to
> Linux. I don't need to read opinions that I'm already in agreement
> with. The stuff I disagree with - that SCO losing is an absolute lock
> - is pointless : if someone is too stupid to understand that anything
> is possible, why would I want to read what they write?
Anything IS possible Tony, except that you will produce a real argument
other than your stupid 'anything is possible' reply.
> Sheesh! Unencumbered.
You really don't have a tiny vestige of a clue, do you Tony.
> The GPL copyrights are what makes Linux free and of value. It's other
> parties claiming that Linux violates THEIR copyrights that is the
> concern.
There is no such thing as 'GPL copyrights" Tony - see comment above.
>> I think you do, Tony.
> Of course you do. That's because you aren't smart enough to understand
> someone who actually THINKS rather than joins in the roar of the crowd.
I wish you would demonstrate for all to see some of your 'THINKING' because
I see absolutely no evidence in this thread.
Perhap you are saving it for a special occasion... like SCO and the copying
evidence.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
> Yeah, right, Brian. You are a jealous little toad. You've belittled
> me and disparaged my website many times here. I resent it,
You have it coming, dumbass.
> and the dozens of other folks who contribute to that site resent it
> too.
Really? They told you that?
> They and I are DOING something: we share what hard-won knowledge we
> have with other people. I work hard, damn hard, at making that site the
> very best that I can. I resent that a slimy little jackass like you
> throws mud at it.
Ouch, that hurt my feelings.
> What do YOU do besides carp at people who disagree with you?
I have no problem dealing with people who have opposing views, I just don't
suffer fools gladly.
> If you can do a better job than I and the other contributors do, we
> welcome your comments and submissions.
Always the 'we' - speak for yourself dumbass.
> Otherwsise, shut your useless yap.
No, Tony, I won't.
Brian