Linux.com

Feature: Legal

S2 'mystery man' Anderer speaks on MS, SCO, and licensing

By Chris Preimesberger on March 12, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Mike Anderer was the author of the S2-to-SCO Group memo that comprises the "Halloween X" document that was released to the press by Eric Raymond last week. Anderer, the CEO of S2 and the middleman in the SCO Group's $50 million PIPE transaction of last October 16 contacted us today, and while he is under a non-disclosure agreement and can't say very much about the $50 million PIPE deal, what follows are some of the thoughts he can share.
I am certain people would like to know what is happening but I cannot talk to you without permission. I will tell you my background is integration and I am OS agnostic; the more there are the better. I will file close to 20 patents this year for companies in many spaces, including homeland security, anti-terrorism, several grid computing and virtual machine patents, and, ironically, I should have one issued in the expiring and disappearing e-mail arena. It was initiated 4-5 yrs ago.

I have helped many companies and individuals who run companies in the GNU/Linux, BSD, and Unix world as well as those in the Microsoft world. I admire the good parts and despair the bad parts.

Most of my time is currently spent on new technologies on several different platforms. Many of my companies and several of our offices have been merged into other companies, moved or sold as part of a technology deal, some even sold during the deepest parts of the downturn. I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon. In several cases, I am finally finding or developing ways to solve problems I have been working on for the last 20 years. The only way I can hide is to work so hard that it becomes close to impossible to track all the companies I have owned, bought, sold, rolled up, or sat on the board of. If you include the ones where I helped entrepreneurs and companies through tough times, or sat on non-profit boards, the list would be even tougher to follow.

Anybody who knows me or really analyzes what they found on the Web will find I don't hide well. I also have a lot to say in most situations.

The following is simply my opinion. This is all I can really give you considering the NDA. As for the PIPE deal, I cannot comment at all, but I also would have nothing of interest to add beyond what has already been made public.

I would state that this licensing project represented only a small fraction of my time over the last year and has completely gone away in recent months. This was a job for me, and licensing IP has been an increasingly significant portion of my work.

Many thousands of licenses have been sold to Unix over the years. I cannot think of any major hardware or software company or even university that does not have a license directly or indirectly. If you see the world moving forward as a (GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix)/Windows world it does not take an MIT rocket scientist to think it would make sense for the largest software company in the world to increase their rights by taking another license (remember they did develop and own a portion of the code originally sold as MS Xenix). In fact I saw several postings on Slashdot hammering them for including what people saw as BSD property (with proper copyright attribution) in some of their products. It was also no secret that Microsoft licensed and even purchased companies in this arena over the last several years (look where Windows Services for Unix came from). They developed some pretty incredible functionality into things like SFU 3.5 (which I just got for free with a systems magazine). If you consider this licensing an indirect financing of SCO, then everybody (or at least the thousands of licensees) is responsible at some level. The licenses in some cases exceeded $100 million, so these were not even close to the largest ones. The hard part for me was finding somebody who was not already a big licensee.

Just as I see Microsoft developing stronger interoperability from their side, I see a huge community developing stronger connectivity from the GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix side. We will work from both sides and hopefully contribute to making things more functional for customers whatever they choose. The only really interesting point here is that people finally benefit from more stuff working together. It still takes work, but things are getting better in many areas.

I think one real issue, that people are skirting, is who will be the ultimate guarantor of IP-related issues in a world that is governed by the GPL and GPL-like licenses. I could easily see IBM, HP, Sun, and many of the other large hardware players solving this problem tomorrow by settling the dispute with SCO and maybe even taking the entire code base and donating it into the public domain. I know this is what I originally thought would happen, at least the settlement part. I am not certain what people who paid tens of millions for licenses would say if what they paid for was now free, but that is a different issue.

In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.

Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem. Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for software that was free (or close to it). I think the dispute with SCO would have been settled a long time ago if everybody knew this was the last one. The problem is there will probably be hundreds or even thousands of these disputes in the future and the targets will be the companies with the deepest pockets. Even if the large vendors disclaim all responsibility initially, I do not think the customers will accept this from their vendors for very long. In the meantime, I don't see anybody being in a hurry to write the first big check.

The world of software is changing. I think everybody sees that part on the product side, but the economic underpinnings are changing too. It used to be you included R&D and patent development costs into your license add your costs and a markup and you could make a living. We relied on cross-licensing, licensing, and innovation, and our ability to prevent other people from copying our work without permission. Now things are shifting, but I am not certain anybody has completely figured out this new model, and if you think it is just any one company that is concerned about this, you are wrong.

I do think things will work out, and the sooner the better. I believe the software industry is in an incredible renaissance and that means maybe there will be a lot more people out there making things better and a couple fewer people with enough spare time to flame under five separate handles, all registered as underage so they can exploit the better privacy laws we afford to children.

I do appreciate all the effort and help people have provided by digging up old sites and even stuff I had long forgotten about. I am still hoping people dig up some of the more positive projects I have been involved with. I have also had several long lost friends contact me. I think they thought I might need some support.

-- Mike

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on S2 'mystery man' Anderer speaks on MS, SCO, and licensing

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

More Yeah!

Posted by: SarsSmarz on March 13, 2004 02:24 AM
Yeah! He got his act together with his little sabbatical, and is spouting tons, without actually saying anything. I'll vote for him!

#

Re:More Yeah!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 02:31 AM
Exactly.. One wonders why he couldn't save his time and say: "I'm under an NDA and can't comment." instead of spouting off such a load of useless BS.

Does he really think people were after his opinion of the entire world situation?

#

Puhleeeeaaaaazzzzeeeeeeeee ! ! ! !

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 02:01 AM
Can anyone really believe they can be all lawyerlike and suck the life out of those who actually DO the work and come up with the ideas, and post pathetic lawyerspeak, obfuscatory drivel, and expect the software/developer community to read it and be anything other than disgusted and want to take a shower?

A person could also go and get a REAL job somewhere; come up with some new ideas rather the IP "licensing" (read "vampire blooduscking") racket.
Paul Anderson
PhD

#

Scum of the earth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 02:43 AM
Another lawyer with a US centric view of the world.

#

Re:Scum of the earth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 01:06 AM
This is not a US-centric view, it is an idiot-centric view.

Please don't automatically assume that everybody in the US thinks the way that this clown does. I personally find that insulting.

Thanks.

#

Re:Scum of the earth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 11:29 AM
Another Eurotrash US basher generalizing.

#

Re:Scum of the earth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 12:44 PM
Actually, I'm from the US<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:Scum of the earth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 10:22 PM
And obviously not too proud of your country.

#

Re:Scum of the earth

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2004 02:47 AM
Actually, I'm very proud of my country. It's the best country in the world, but it still has a long way to go before it becomes World centric.

Twenty-seven percent of the worlds population get by on less than $1 a day.

#

QDos, but what about the important stuff?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 02:43 AM
First of all, thank you, Mike, for coming out. This whole mess will get sorted out much faster this way.

OTOH, your nice speech is what in France, we call 'wooden tong' (langue de bois). You haven't actually brought anything to the table. Surely you can see how your 'ip licensing' has gotten out of hand, and is now little more than a smear campaign.

Mabey it's time to show the high moral standards you claim, and put this fiasco down. Like that we can all get down to doing what we do best, and make tomorrows computing world one of innovation and interoperability, where honest business and the users alike will thrive.

regards

David Mills

d.mills AT tiscali.fr

#

Re:QDos, but what about the important stuff?

Posted by: rmyers1400 on March 14, 2004 12:49 AM
What do you really expect from a "strategic consultant" and one-man patent application printing press?

Best argument I've read yet for abolishing the USPTO.

On the other hand, Mr. Anderer could open a debate on something really interesting like "The Role of Narcissism in the Advancement of Technology."

Mr. Milken, please meet Mr. Anderer. You two have so much in common, like the same first name. No big deal there, of course. Your ego is your biggest asset? Doesn't really set you apart, either. People offer you large sums of money for pimping scummy deals? That's a more rarefied club. You've become infamous for pimping scummy deals? You two should have alot to talk about.

RM

#

Summary:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 02:47 AM
- I am great.
- I am so busy in great stuff.
- I have great patents.
- You all don't understand how great my knowledge is so I demonstrate my great wisdom by spouting irrelevent hot air.
- Wasn't that great?
- You are not a great as I am.
- Someday I'll be able to tell you more about how great I am.
- Go back to your mundane lives while I go do great things.

#

Ican make it tighter.

Posted by: cr on March 13, 2004 02:54 AM
Look -- shiny things!

#

Two points, moving into several.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 02:53 AM
One, He says that Microsoft have suits pending and two, he appears to be a intelligent person desperately trying to make sense of his support for IP bullies.

He's a SCO apologist. When he says nobody has worked out a model for the current industry he overlooks IBM, whom seem to be doing well at present. He's saying that if a company can't compete technologically it should fall back on legalise and paperwork.

Using his logic Windows wouldn't have existed because of MacOS, and MacOS wouldn't exist because of Xerox-PARC!

Bring back Doug Michels! Someone who at least could compete technologically; the last Unixware could barely compete with Windows 2003. Let alone the horridly 1980s OpenUNIX. He should stop trying to kid himself and move with the times.

He talks about nobody been able to compete with Microsoft. Sounds tragically like people saying nobody could compete with IBM in 1985.

#

Re:Two points, moving into several.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 12:04 AM
> He talks about nobody been able to compete with Microsoft. Sounds tragically like people saying nobody could compete with IBM in 1985.



Alas, the conceptualization of competition is vastly different than 20 years ago.



To compete used to mean "attempt to convince someone to buy your product as opposed to the product of another company".



To compete now means "attempt to sue the other companies out of existence so that your's is the only product available".

#

So, he reads Slashbash, but

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 03:01 AM
it took a week for him to hear about Halloween 10 and respond with, well, with *nothing* really?

Riiiiiiggghhttt...

Mod parent down, -10 : FUD

#

Re:So, he reads Slashbash, but

Posted by: mikes2 on March 14, 2004 03:37 AM
Actually, I responded initially on Tuesday, but my original response went to an unmonitored e-mail account. It took a couple days to catch up and to see if my NDA would allow any response. I have spent many days responding in these forums going back to the old Wildcat bulletin board sites (and earlier) and onto the old Compuserve NovA, NovB, and NovC Novell forums. We used to get really interesting converstaions going with people like Brian Valentine (Microsoft LAN Manager days) and Mark Cuban...The difference was most people were not annonymous, so there was less meanness and some really good exchanges of information). The world was less black and white, (maybe it was just blue and red)

-Mike

#

Better to read that than be blind .....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 03:04 AM
but not by much.

Would the editors of Newsforge care to comment on this "interview" ?

#

Yeah...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 03:07 AM
"Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users"

Is this a proven fact? Because all your "thinking" is based on it... and it seems totally absurd to me.

- James

#

Re:Yeah...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 01:15 PM
Since when is the GPL a license agreement? Last time I checked, it was a license.

Which means the user doesn't promise anything, such as to assume any kind of liability; he just gets a limited permission to use a product for something. OF COURSE it's then his responsibility to ensure that this something is within the law. It always was. I don't see MS or SCO coming out to protect you if you use their software for something illegal; quite the opposite in fact, if we are to believe their propaganda.

#

Re:Yeah...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:24 PM
They still don't Grok the GPL. The GPL provides no waranty. Waranty != liability. Those are two different beasts. Is there a legal way to transfer liability in a license or contract for a crime comitted.
Can I just sign a contract that says, "Hey I'm selling you this car but If it turns out that I stole it, you have to bear the punishment of the crime on my behalf and I'll go scott free"?

#

Re:Yeah...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 11:27 PM
You are of course correct in what you are saying, and the answer to those two questions are no.
However, if you turn around and then sell the car (perform one of the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders), then you become liable (remember that for copyright, not knowing that you did something wrong, is not an excuse). Now, since most homeuser are endusers, this is not a problem. But for companies that download once, install many times, this is certainly a problem, since they are also funtioning as distributors.

#

Re:Yeah...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 05:04 AM
I think, generally, due diligence is all that can be expected. I don't know what applies in these cases nor what a court's standards/guidlines are, but you can only be liable up to a point because of someone else's original negligence or crimes.

#

Spoken like a true IANAL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 10:16 PM
Personal injury lawyers want a law system where the property of liability is conservative and completely transferrable. That way, no matter what stupid thing that you do that got you injured, they can follow the liablity chain until they find pockets with lots of money in them. They aren't interested in finding who was really responsible. Defective products happen, and people get hurt, but more often it is defective people use perfectly good products and get hurt (do you need a label telling you not to pick up a running lawn-mower and use it to trim a hedge?).

There are some legal priciples with unforseen consequences that make these cases difficult, but usually these cases gravitate to caches of money, and stay there.

#

Apt title for your post

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2004 12:30 AM
- nt

#

More misrepresentation of the GPL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 03:16 AM
Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem.



The GPL does nothing of the sort. Any liability for IP infringement in products released under the GPL is still on the contributor and relief for IP infringement still involves removing the infringing portion.



The solution to your "key problem", Mr. Anderers, is to establish some sanity in IP legislation and to move away from the 100x return model that some companies seem to apply to what currently passes for IP. The current environment is about companies wanting money for nothing.


#

Re:More misrepresentation of the GPL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 02:10 AM
Amen to that.

#

OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 03:33 AM
He suffers from the same malady as SCO and MSFT. He assumes that IP is something to be monetized. IP consists of copyright and patents. Once this silly SCO things is dead and gone, which seems all but inevitable, no one will question copyrights again. Now we must focus on the ridiculous software patent system. Once that is gone, then, and only then, will we be free.

The patent fight is going to get very ugly. I am expecting there to be civil disobedience required to get the laws changed. Welcome back to the Equal Rights movement.

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:08 AM
He assumes that IP is something to be monetized.

Good assumption, companies aren't going to put R&D dollars into something they are forced to give away for free. Idealists may think that all new R&D can happen in the local linux hacker's basement....not likely.

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:57 AM
You think the Linux kernel is being done in a basement? What about Apache and MySQL? Bzzzt, try again. I see plenty of R&D happening under the GPL. What great things have come out of Microsoft? Software Assurance is a nice product. Wait, I know, BOB! Oh wait, Clippy!

Bottling an idea is wrong.

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Martin on March 13, 2004 06:17 AM
I think you just pointed an important consequence of the use of the GPL. Like the author said, we are in a changing time in the software world.
It was : R/D then sell it. Let others make money by supporting it.
Now it's more like : R/D then give it. And make money by supporting it. The best example is IBM.

But besides the ones doing R/D, who can make money from the new paradigm ? I don't know.

#

Think evolution.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 09:02 AM
I think it's the really old fashion way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something called evolution. Seemed to word OK for humans.

#

R&amp;D Dollars

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 08:46 AM
The fact is, when you have an easily available public pool
of information the efficiency of your R&D dollars screams upwards.
Open Source software has proven that it can compete
head to head on technical merits in the real world.
The "closed shop" strategy of R&D has proven itself to be
unable to compete in the marketplace because it is too
damn expensive. These are hard bottom-line conclusions...
The idealists are the ones who think they can stick to
an obviously failing strategy and then resort to legal
wrangling when they find themselves losing.

#

Re:R&amp;D Dollars

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 01:06 PM
Do you have any concrete figures that closed shop R&D is "obviously failing"? No? Of course not, because people like you never have any hard evidence to back up your claims. You just assert that whatever you claim is "obvious" and hope that no one calls bullshit on your sorry ass.

#

Where the hell have you been the last ten years?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 08:54 AM
I get it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... your head's been in the sand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

I work on open source about 10 hours for my company<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a utility.

#

Re:Where the hell have you been the last ten years

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 08:56 AM
10 hours a day

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 09:44 AM
Some 95% of software development is not done for resale. Nobody is forcing companies to give code away. They are collarborating on areas where it makes sense and where there is little value to hoarding away code and re-inventing the wheel again, and again, and again. Of course, it's not just businesses that are funding this, academia and folks who just have spare time on their hands are involved too.

      Fortunately, its still a free country and we are still allowed to collaborate in this manner. I imagine you would outlaw this collaboration and force the 95% to pay the 5% over and over again for the same code.

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:26 PM
it seems like he snuck back to offer a reply to himself to reiterate his inanities.

As one person pointed out, he claims that the GPL leaves the end-user holding the bag if stolen code is found within. Actually, the person who stole the code and put it in is the thief, and is the one responsible, not the unwitting recipient.

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 11:33 PM
"Some 95% of software development is not done for resale."

Exactly right, which means the 5% (commercial software) is the tail that's trying to wag the dog. For the last seven years I have been writing software for internal use in a dept of my State government. I have written over 25 different applications, two of which were massive. None of them will ever be seen in public because they are to narrow in focus -- they have no general utility aside from helping state personnel fullfil their obligations to regulate certain business activities.

We have paid $$Millions for MS licenses and hardware required for the MS upgrade treadmill. The final blow was the XP EULA which required us to allow MS, or any of its assignees, to remotely access our computers and add or remove any software they deem neccessary for "security". A joke which the IRS wouldn't appreciate. Now, we are looking for GUI RAD dev tools that are GPL, sufficient, and cross platform. In place of Oracle, PostgreSQL. In place of VFP or Java, Python and Boa_contructor. Yesterday I loaded one of those massive databases into PostgreSQL and now I will use the smaller of those two massive apps, which I've ported to Python via Boa-Constuctor, to access that data. I see NO show-stoppers in this migration move.

#

Re:OldThink

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 12:35 AM
You are absolutely right. This guy is the other cheek covering the same big *hole (you know who). We have to tear them apart to plug it.

#

Parasitic Organism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 03:38 AM
"In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies..., how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash?"

In other words, small companies and independent developers aren't viable in the now lawsuit-saddled software industry. Individual coders must become cogs in a big machine that ultimately feeds the lawyer-parasites.

#

Re:Parasitic Organism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 09:27 AM
Yes, you summed it up pretty well. One would think that would be an indicator of some sort to politicians that there's something broken in this business sector and that feeding companies more rights under IP law will only make things worse. But then again, when did a politician ever do something worthwhile for you in a non-election year?

#

Re:Parasitic Organism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 11:03 PM
I, for one, welcome our new parasitic lawyer masters.

#

Re:Parasitic Organism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2004 04:20 AM
Depressingly, you seem to have missed that this *is* an election year (in the U.S.).

Perhaps that's why it doesn't matter what year it is, politians will still do nothing worthwhile.

#

Defensive and evasive

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:04 AM
Mr. Anderer,
Nobody has blamed you for anything so you don't need to defend yourself. We never asked about your philosophy on IP economics. The only reason you're now famous is that your email connected Microsoft to Baystar's $50mil investment in SCO. That's the key issue here, and you've evaded it completely.

#

Another f****ing idiot

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:15 AM
[quote]
I think one real issue, that people are skirting, is who will be the ultimate guarantor of IP-related issues in a world that is governed by the GPL and GPL-like licenses. I could easily see IBM, HP, Sun, and many of the other large hardware players solving this problem tomorrow by settling the dispute with SCO and maybe even taking the entire code base and donating it into the public domain
[/quote]

Donating it to the PUBLIC DOMAIN!!! I cant adequately express my anger! GPL has nothing to do with Public Domain. If I wanted my work to be Public Domain I would license it as such. The solution is verrry simple: take the GPL license seriously and honor it as you would any other license. These fools speak of the importance of protecting IP rights while completely failing to even acknowledge the rights of the GPL contributors (and other similiar licenses). GPL IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN!!! GPL SOFTWARE IS NOT SOFTWARE THAT NOONE OWNS - IT IS OWNED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE CODE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE SAME COPYRIGHT LAWS YOU LEECHES PRETEND TO RESPECT.

[/end rant]

(and don't get me started on the 'Settling the dispute with SCO' crap).

#

Re:Another f****ing idiot

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:30 AM
Eh...I don't think he's talking about moving the Linux and GPL code to the public domain. I think he means the "legacy UNIX" code; SysV, etc.

#

Re:Another f****ing idiot

Posted by: Matthew Cline on March 13, 2004 08:15 AM
This only makes sense if you assume by "settlement" he meant IBM buying up SCO and throwing SysV into the public domain. If IBM just payed SCO $5 billion for a settlement, why would SCO put SysV into the public domain?

#

Buying SCO

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 08:57 AM
Now that you remind me, there WAS talk about IBM buying
SCO when this whole sad affair started out. In a way
Anderer has explained that the ORIGINAL strategy was to
encourage IBM to buy-out SCO which would make sense and
have been a nice little earner for SCO shareholders.
If IBM did buy-out SCO then they would feel pressure
to release the majority of the Sys-V code into the public
domain or else linux advocates would get suspicious of IBM.
As if happens, IBM decided to grind SCO to pulp rather than
attempt a buy-out -- the plan back-fired!

#

Re:Buying SCO

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 10:00 AM
If IBM's plan was to grind SCO into pulp it doesn't seem to be failing at all. SCO is evidently starting to irritate the presiding judge with its habitual non-compliance with Discovery orders and abundant press releases, while IBM is being quite cooperative with Discovery orders and keeping press releases to a minimum. In case you don't understand these things, irritating the judge is always a bad idea.

It looks like IBM is well on the way to getting SCO enough rope to hang themselves with.

#

Re:Buying SCO

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 02:17 PM

No, SCO's plan backfired, not IBM's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Re:Buying SCO

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 11:27 PM
IBM has been around for a looong time! I don't think a company that has as many years as them are stupid when it comes to IP and protecting themselves. they are very coutious and plan thier stategy very far ahead. A company like SCO could never even stand a chance aginst the likes of them, even with M$ backing them.

#

Grrrr..... Sue EVERYBODY!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:24 AM
"Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem."

No, the key problem is that the bloodsucking lawyers and greed execs of the world think you MUST go after someone because they MIGHT be infringing.

No one forces ANYONE to use the GPL. No one forces SCO to use it either - which is what really frosts the rest of us. SCO would have it so that they can sue anyone indiscriminately and yet much of their product relies on GPL software.

No sir, this is simply about playing by the rules. There is a reason 99% of the tech world is up in arms about SCO and its activities. I'm not certain any other company will ever want to go through this sort of thing again when its all over either.

#

Not one with a product, anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 07:35 AM
Remember that SCO can only do this because they have nothing to lose... they have never turned a profit in the history of the company, so getting the entire industry off-side is hardly about to hurt their investors. If, say, IBM, HP, Sun etc. had tried this, their bottom line would be in tatters by now.

#

Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:28 AM
That's all you care about Mike.

You social standing.
Pride in your little affluent lifestyle.
How you look.
And feeding your little ego.

That's all you Mormons care about.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:04 AM
I agree with you right up to your last sentence.

I am a Mormon.

I am embarresed that SCO and friends are too.

So don't lump all Mormons into one basket.

Bad eggs are bad eggs no matter what their religion.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 11:51 PM
And because you're a Mormon you'll sit on your complacent A** and let these megalomaniacs get away with this crap all in the name of "Free Agency".

Silence is a form of consent.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 01:14 AM
And what are YOU doing, exactly, to prevent these "meglomaniacs" from getting away with this?

What exactly would you suggest? A letter or phone call to his Bishop? Tell me, how effective would it be for someone to call your boss at work, for example, and tell him how dishonest you are? Would you get fired? Would there even be an "investigation" of your activities? Why not? Because good leaders don't respond to 3rd party accusations and inuendo, which is what "speaking out in church" about Darl and his gang would be.

So far, a judge or jury has not declared the Darl Gang to have done anything illegal. Without blatent evidence of wrongdoing or a governement conviction, official church action will not take place. (Although, if he showed up in my congregation, he'd get a critical eye from me!)

Get off your high horse and lose the chip on your shoulder, you intolerant, narrow minded, idiot.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 01:25 AM
I feel sorry for a lot of mormons. So many of them appear to be such good people.

Good people who are taken in by an organization founded by some drunk, who made up some bullshit story about the history of the Americas.

Do you guys honestly believe that the Native Americans descend from Israelites? I forget some of the other "stories", but I once read a little bit of Mormon material and found it to be blatently made-up, whacked-out cult bullshit.

I can understand, and respect, if the cult material helps you out and gives you spiritual advice and comfort. But let's not forget that the organization is crooked at some of the highest levels. In some cases, that is even highly documented.
Bad eggs are bad eggs no matter what their religion.
Your bad eggs just happen to be at the top.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 05:22 AM
Replace Mormons with Christians and americans story with walking on water, etc..

Dude, unless you're an atheist or an agnostic, you don't have the right to burn someones religion without seeming to be a narrow minded idiot! And even then, you'd get burned!

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 07:35 AM
I'm an atheist or an agnostic (depending on your definition). I still don't have the right to burn someone's religion. 'Nuf said.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 12:24 PM
Perhaps you should read "Beyond Mormonism" by Jim Spencer. Free book online, google for it.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Kalak on March 13, 2004 05:30 AM
Care to troll a bit more? I've known greedy athiests, and generous Mormons. Nothing is said here to imply that this man has a religion at all (or is allowed to say much of anything for fear of something - NDA it sounds like, so he may have been "shown the code" by SCO as part of the process).

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: David A. Cobb on March 14, 2004 12:23 AM
Nothing is said here to imply that this man has a religion at all


Of course he has, it's clear as can be. He
    is
his own religion. He bows down to his own glorious Self.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 08:25 AM
I think he is actually Catholic.

#

Re:Money is your God

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 01:07 AM
The Mormons should sue Mel Gibson for using their IP in the Passion. Of course all involved would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement before looking at the Cross... maybe that's why you won't find a cross on a Mormon church.

#

predicting the future is not that easy,

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 09:45 AM
and attempts to divine it tend to be unsuccessful.

I see a fascination with power, not an understanding or appreciation of wealth, intelligence, or progress.

This individual may feel that he is in possession of the proverbial crystal ball, but what he actually sees is more than likely incorrect information. Predicting the future is not that easy, and attempts to divine it tend to be unsuccessful. Individuals who cannot see the truth when it is right under their nose become victims, victims of their own stupidity, victims of their own inability to see and understand the true nature of things.

#

Re:predicting the future is not that easy,

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 01:08 AM
Here's a good church:

http://www.subgenius.com

#

Like Bugs Bunny Says:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:29 AM
Of course you realize, this means war!

#

Demonstration?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 12:59 PM
Seriously. It is time for a demonstration if you ask me. I'm not sure what we should demonstrate against: Microsoft, SCO, or patents.

* SCO quite falls off imo. They're just a FUDing pet who have no case at all. It is time to move on to real threat.

* Patents obstruct the software development and freedom of speech.

* Microsoft is one of the few companies which are using patents and pets. But they're using, or trying to use a tool: patents and pets. How about we demonstrate against what this makes these tools possible? I'm not sure about the latter. The former is covered by point 2.

Ofcourse we can also demonstrate against multiple of these but that makes it less strong. Before a cynist says: it makes no sense, wait. The protests against software patents in Europe did make sense!

Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, one word of advise. You better not come near my country, i will personally deliver you a creampie in your face in apprectiation of your anti-capitalist tactics.

#

Vainglory, FUD, BS &amp; a slip-up

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:29 AM
All anyone cared about was the PIPE deal, and this narcissistic windbag says zilch about it, then regales us all with tales of glory, buckets of anti-GPL FUD, and a bunch of transparent BS about how he is 'OS agnostic'.
The man is clearly a behind the scenes operator. Why such a tortured trail? It's called 'covering your tracks'. So, MS has more suits up their sleeve? Funny, last time I looked it was SCO launching sui-* OH! DUH!! Thanks for clearing that up Mike! I guess you're not nearly as slick as you thought you were!
- Tim R

#

Re:Vainglory, FUD, BS &amp; a slip-up

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 03:25 AM
I think you misinterpreted what he said. What he meant was Microsoft had 50+ patent suits against them.

#

Re:Vainglory, FUD, BS &amp; a slip-up

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 03:12 PM
Yep, I guess the grandparent poster is not as smart as he thought he was either!

Or maybe it was just a typo from his knee jerking and hitting the keyboard so hard.

#

You say tomato, I say tomato

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 02:02 PM
I suppose sarcasm tags would've helped. My tinfoil headgear misdirection merely apes Mr. Anderers foggy prose. His motive for writing this bizarre bio/manifesto, when all anyone wanted to know about was the PIPE deal should be considered when wading through his breathless dissertation on his personal greatness and his rapid fire FUD delivery.
To illustrate, let's start here:

'If you consider this licensing an indirect financing of SCO, then everybody (or at least the thousands of licensees) is responsible at some level. The licenses in some cases exceeded $100 million, so these were not even close to the largest ones. The hard part for me was finding somebody who was not already a big licensee.'

Fine. Except for the fact that SCO SEC filings hardly paint such a rosy picture. Notice how Anderer hitches one ambiguous statement to another in a feeble attempt to say MS wasn't bankrolling SCO's war chest cynically when they bought their 'license' just when SCO was choking out?

Here's a good one:

'Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments.'

Just what does this cloudy statement mean? He talks about 'OS companies' having suits agianst them, then talks about 'insulating their customers'. SCO hasn't sued any users yet either. Why? They can't! His statement is pure FUD.

And then there's:

'In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders.'

After which, he says:

'Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem.You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.'

So which is it? Since you don't know who to 'go after', and the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, then why does Red Hat need 'a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space'?

Not content, he goes on:

'I think the dispute with SCO would have been settled a long time ago if everybody knew this was the last one. The problem is there will probably be hundreds or even thousands of these disputes in the future and the targets will be the companies with the deepest pockets.'

Why would the 'dispute' have been settled if 'everybody knew this was the last one'? Who is everybody? That is the salient question. Is he saying that if IBM merely gave SCO 5 billion, that MS would stop their proxy war on OSS? Another salient point is that here he is talking about THOUSANDS of lawsuits against OSS, not just 50 against MS - I suppose the brainiacs that missed my sarcasm also missed that alarming assertion - perhaps they weren't as smart as they thought either. I notice that my spin job on his words elicited more of a reaction out of them than his fevered fud fest.
Congratulations on your astutely missing my obvious sarcasm, the point behind it, and the opportunity to debunk some especially badly written FUD.

#

Re:You say tomato, I say tomato

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 09:40 PM
I would also add that getting people to say. "NO NO NO, he means that Microsoft is looking down the barrel of 50 $500,000,000 lawsuits" a lot is the kind of viral PR misdirection neccessary to survive in the OS space in this world of Anderers and Enderles.

#

That Was A Nice Speech But...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:30 AM
"...Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after?...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Why do you have to go after anybody? Are you saying people using GPL stuff are inherently guilty?

It sounds like more SCO talk to me.

#

Re:That Was A Nice Speech But...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:49 AM
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that SCO is right (I hate saying that, even for the sake of argument, but start by imagining SCO never distributed Linux...) and millions of lines of copyrighted, secret UNIX code showed up in the Linux kernel. How does the company maintain it's business, pay it's employees, etc., if there is no way to financially recoup it's loses? Can they file a reverse class action lawsuit and sue millions of Linux users at once? or sue them one at a time? It's hard to believe either of those would work...

#

Source tracablility

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 06:31 AM
Every piece of code contribuited to Linux is tracable. Who contributed and when they did so is right there, in the version control records.

You get to the copyright infringer by
1 - Identifying the specific copyrighted code. (This SCO has not yet done.)
2 - Ask Linus, et al to remove the specific code. (This SCO has yet to do.)
3 - Find the contributor, identified in the control logs, as the first step on the trail to the infringer. (Since SCO has not done step 1, they cannot do this step.)
4 - Sue the infringer.

SCO's method is:
1 - Sue someone with money for something other than copyright infringment.
2 - Make lots of noise, but give no facts, that copyright infringement has occurred.
3 - Sue people that don't give in to the noise you are making.

Guess which one is reasonable and ethical?

#

Re:That Was A Nice Speech But...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 09:24 AM
Sue the frigging people who put it there. Sue the frigging people that are distributing it without permission. BTW who's MS suing for there code that was put on the web?

#

At least he spellchecked this document

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:31 AM
Otherwis it wud reed like his emales

#

Re:At least he spellchecked this document

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:41 AM
rotflol...

#

Re:At least he spellchecked this document

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:22 PM
Indeed, touche to the poster. Very funny, that.

#

You state you are under a NDA. When?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:47 AM
There was a problem finding you for while.

When did you sign this NDA? In the last few days?

Roblimo, quick! Before he gets a chance to NDA the date of signing the NDA!

Wouldn't surprise me for a second. Enough time for Fedex to do the legwork.

Aaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy!

#

SCO Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:22 AM
Mike Anderer conviently ignores the fact that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL for years. Including a couple of years while SCO was the "owner of the UNIX operating system." And he conviently ignores the fact that SCO has never shown any infringment. Yet he is all over indemnification. Why? Because his deals (licensing, patents) depend on the ability to sue, and not just to remove the problem, but to sue the 'deepest pockets' as he puts it. Without indemification, his business model falls apart, as it does for many software companies. But that is not the only model out there. Ask IBM.

#

Not really a valid argument

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 11:02 PM
I keep hearing this argument over and over.

But really: would a court go "You guys accidentally sold your own IP in Linux under the GPL so you obviously gave it away and hence have forfeit all rights to control it"?

Don't ge me wrong, SCO are a bunch of litigous bastards, but we don't need this "they even sold it themselves" crap.

The rest of thier BS speaks for itself without questionable arguments like this.

- Paul

#

accidentally sold?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2004 12:23 AM
Where do you get this from? Certainly not from the facts, but from the SCO FUD. I don't want to get into the facts here but please do a little research before swallowing this shit. Look at some of the Linux changelogs. And that's ignoring the facts when SCO put their blinders on when looking their own knowledge of the Linux and UNIX code bases.

Only an idiot judge and incompetent defense would allow this nonsense to succeed. This would be like a mechanic claiming he accidentally sold a part of his car when he sold his car so he now wants everyone who drives his car to pay him rent. However, he won't tell anybody what part the part is. When he is finally forced by the judge to reveal that the part is the floor mats he'll be laughed out of court. But you seem to swallow this shit so maybe this whole thing is just PR FUD and it's working

#

I guess IBM's legal team didn't seek your

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2004 12:22 AM
brilliant council before making the same argument to the judge. If only they had consulted you, they could have saved themselves the trouble! It is precisely because SCO didn't abide by the GPL that IBM has a copyright case against them (and so do any other kernel contributors, incidentally). Anything else their legal team should know?

#

Buahhhh ??

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:33 AM
What the %#&% is this #@$%@#$$ talking about ? Dude i think your little sister spun you a few too many times in the washer and now your like slightly retarded.

                                       

#

GPL destroying the last viable industry in US....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 05:40 AM
IP Law is the last growth industry in the US. Everything else is going overseas. These jokers earn a living either stealing ideas (it costs relatively nothing to apply for a patent) or suing people (it costs them nothing to file a lawsuit). They dont actually produce anything except more work for themselves. I think our buddy/humanitarian Mark falls into this category. If GPL is successful, he stands to lose everything....
Perhaps we should modify the laws in the US such that if you file a lawsuit for X dollars and lose,
the person you file it against gets that amount. Perhaps, also, we could make it impossible to get a patent on intangible objects. That would take care of all this crap.....

#

analogy (kind of)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 11:35 AM
Hypothetical. You work for this self-made millionare. Odds and ends, miscellaneous odd jobs, taking care of the pets, running errands, etc. So you have suddenly decided that you a