Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Legal
SCO Group finally posts its litigation-records Web site
By Chris Preimesberger
on
March 26, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
SCO Group has finally made public the Web site it promised last fall. SCO.com/scoip/ purports to be "The Right Place for SCO Intellectual Property Information."
The site consists of a front page plus links to sections containing the legal filings and court orders involving the five current and past intellectual property lawsuits (vs. IBM, Novell, AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler and Red Hat). Not all legal events have links to documents, however.
SCO Group's $5 billion lawsuit against IBM is due to be in court in November. There are dozens of legal affidavits stored there, going back to the inception of the case in March 2003.
DaimlerChrysler, which hadn't used Unix System V code for more than seven years when it was surprised by the SCO lawsuit that accused the automaker of using Linux systems that included SCO's proprietary Unix code, saw the case thrown out by a Michigan judge last summer. DaimlerChrysler proved that it had indeed complied with the original license (signed with AT&T years ago) by certifying its use of Unix System V code with SCO Group on April 6, 2004, 11 weeks before Michigan Judge Rae Lee Chabot's dismissal of the case on July 21.
The SCO complaint against AutoZone was put on hold by a Nevada court last fall, pending the outcome of the IBM case. SCO Group contends on the site that "AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights."
The Novell and Red Hat cases are still entangled in legal maneuvering by SCO Group lead attorney David Boies. Groklaw.net offers an exhaustive look at SCO Group's litigation, including links to many legal documents and a great number of comments from readers.
Comments
on SCO Group finally posts its litigation-records Web siteNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
This SCO stuff is still going on?
I quit following this OS stuff years ago and I figured when I started looking at this stuff again that it blew over by now.
I quit following this OS stuff years ago and I figured when I started looking at this stuff again that it blew over by now.
Nothing has blown over yet. SCO Group has been making litigation news for two years. Do a search on this site -- or Groklaw's, if you really want detail -- and see what you've missed.
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/-ed.
As someone has already noticed, some of "their" documents were lifted from Groklaw and TuxRocks.
Especially since some of the documents were released under the Creative Commons License and are supposed to be always attributed to their creators - which SCO has not done.
Thus making them violators of an intellectual property license.
Bwahahahaha!!!
It doesn't get more pathetic than this. SCO is becoming a caricature of itself.
Oh, wait, did I say "becoming?"
Especially since some of the documents were released under the Creative Commons License and are supposed to be always attributed to their creators - which SCO has not done.
Thus making them violators of an intellectual property license.
Bwahahahaha!!!
It doesn't get more pathetic than this. SCO is becoming a caricature of itself.
Oh, wait, did I say "becoming?"
groklaw has done the same thing.
used pdfs from <a href="http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html</a scofacts.org>
and didnt provide the credit to that site and when people tried to post the link credit the comments were hidden.
used pdfs from <a href="http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html</a scofacts.org>
and didnt provide the credit to that site and when people tried to post the link credit the comments were hidden.
And I don't suppose you have any actual proof of this, do you? Like a screen capture, or link to an archived page showing these supposedly "hidden" comments?
-James
-James
hidden are hidden
but i believe that <a href="http://linuxblog.sytes.net/index.php?/archives/20" title="sytes.net">http://linuxblog.sytes.net/index.php?/archives/20</a sytes.net><nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 50126.html
has part of the story
also i believe Al posted about it on his site also.-:)
br3n
but i believe that <a href="http://linuxblog.sytes.net/index.php?/archives/20" title="sytes.net">http://linuxblog.sytes.net/index.php?/archives/20</a sytes.net><nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 50126.html
has part of the story
also i believe Al posted about it on his site also.-:)
br3n
br3n is right, you can find confirmation on:
<a href="http://linuxblog.sytes.net/" title="sytes.net">http://linuxblog.sytes.net/</a sytes.net> (you have to look around a bit)
and similar comments on Al Petrofsky's excellent site:
<a href="http://scofacts.org/misc.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/misc.html</a scofacts.org>
I read Groklaw, it's an interesting site, but don't leave objectivity behind just because you agree with the basic position of the site.
<a href="http://linuxblog.sytes.net/" title="sytes.net">http://linuxblog.sytes.net/</a sytes.net> (you have to look around a bit)
and similar comments on Al Petrofsky's excellent site:
<a href="http://scofacts.org/misc.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/misc.html</a scofacts.org>
I read Groklaw, it's an interesting site, but don't leave objectivity behind just because you agree with the basic position of the site.
The only evidence you find is just more subjective opinion filed by people with an axe to grind..
Brenda has had a bug up her butt about Groklaw ever since she got booted off for her vicious behaviour.
Al Petrofsky is a whiner of the first water who was also kicked off Groklaw for being an obnoxious complainer.
Al has tried to run his own website on the subject and has even scarfed most of PJ's articles to post on his website and yet he is still in the basement when it comes to hits.
Al Petrofksy and Brenda are truly obsessed Bitter Groklaw Exiles who refuse to get a life.
Brenda has had a bug up her butt about Groklaw ever since she got booted off for her vicious behaviour.
Al Petrofsky is a whiner of the first water who was also kicked off Groklaw for being an obnoxious complainer.
Al has tried to run his own website on the subject and has even scarfed most of PJ's articles to post on his website and yet he is still in the basement when it comes to hits.
Al Petrofksy and Brenda are truly obsessed Bitter Groklaw Exiles who refuse to get a life.
No br3n is NOT right.
All you are reading is more subjective opinion without an ounce of facts.
br3n and Al have had a problem with PJ ever since they got kicked off Groklaw.
All you are reading is more subjective opinion without an ounce of facts.
br3n and Al have had a problem with PJ ever since they got kicked off Groklaw.
i find it very telling that people that flame and call names dont have enough gumption or character to at least sign a name.
btw
i didnt get kicked off groklaw.
i LEFT
br3n
btw
i didnt get kicked off groklaw.
i LEFT
br3n
Heroes can have feet of clay, get over it. When RMS, ESR, or Perens get out of line, the community calls them on it. Why should PJ be immune? The fact of matter is that PJ cannot handle critics and she badly handled a number of long-time contributors not just Bren. Popular sentiment or not, PJ did some wrong last summer and fall and has not owned up to it. End of story. Period.
What a load of crap!
Your site is no more about objective investigation than Al Petrofsky's.
I notice you don't identify yourself as the owner of the above named website.
You really are a pathetic little self-promoter, devnet.
Your site is no more about objective investigation than Al Petrofsky's.
I notice you don't identify yourself as the owner of the above named website.
You really are a pathetic little self-promoter, devnet.
Well, maybe, maybe not.. the point is that SCOG is the self proclaimed protector of intellectual property in the internet age, GL isn't. That GL may be involved in doing the same as SGOG is now doing, is, if tue, not nice, but pretty much irrelevant: that act, even if actually true, doesn't make the inconsistency in SGOG's position go away.
I am much concerned about this statement:
"groklaw has done the same thing. used pdfs from <a href="http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html</a scofacts.org> [scofacts.org]and didnt provide the credit to that site"
Did the pdfs become a permanent part of the site?
If the pdfs did not become a permanent part of the site, how did PJ use them? Did she subsequently take them down?
If the pdfs did become a permanent part of the site, which article do they appear in? Please point them out.
-Wang-Lo.
"groklaw has done the same thing. used pdfs from <a href="http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html</a scofacts.org> [scofacts.org]and didnt provide the credit to that site"
Did the pdfs become a permanent part of the site?
If the pdfs did not become a permanent part of the site, how did PJ use them? Did she subsequently take them down?
If the pdfs did become a permanent part of the site, which article do they appear in? Please point them out.
-Wang-Lo.
Br3n has made this extraordinary allegation:
"groklaw has done the same thing. used pdfs from <a href="http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html</a scofacts.org> [scofacts.org] and didnt provide the credit to that site"
but has failed to provide any kind of pointer to such usage, or to any witness who addresses the subject.
Well, br3n, for someone with such a damaging accusation to peddle, you certainly are short on evidence. What do you do, just shotgun unsupported slanders into public discussions and then move on? This sort of thing really chips away at your credibility.
-Wang-Lo.
"groklaw has done the same thing. used pdfs from <a href="http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html" title="scofacts.org">http://scofacts.org/scofacts.html</a scofacts.org> [scofacts.org] and didnt provide the credit to that site"
but has failed to provide any kind of pointer to such usage, or to any witness who addresses the subject.
Well, br3n, for someone with such a damaging accusation to peddle, you certainly are short on evidence. What do you do, just shotgun unsupported slanders into public discussions and then move on? This sort of thing really chips away at your credibility.
-Wang-Lo.
This is what Al Petrofsky <A HREF="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1607394124&tid=ckx&sid=1607394124&mid=884&thr=884&cur=884&dir=d" title="yahoo.com">had to say</a yahoo.com> on the matter.
Al Petrofsky can hardly be considered an objective witness.
Al hates PJ with a passion and never misses an opportunity to slander her.
Al Petrofsky runs a competing SCO inforrmation website that has a tiny readership and no reader comments and he is always trying anything to scare up some hits.
Al is something of a glory hound and is unsatisfied with the limited fame his website has provided him. Al has even grabbed a large proportion of PJ's articles to republish on his own site in order to suppliment his own articles.
br3n harbors a burning hatrid of PJ although she has never been able to explain exactly what PJ has allegedly done to her. I suspect br3n has some serious mental health issues judging by the shrill quality of her ongoing hate campaign.
Al hates PJ with a passion and never misses an opportunity to slander her.
Al Petrofsky runs a competing SCO inforrmation website that has a tiny readership and no reader comments and he is always trying anything to scare up some hits.
Al is something of a glory hound and is unsatisfied with the limited fame his website has provided him. Al has even grabbed a large proportion of PJ's articles to republish on his own site in order to suppliment his own articles.
br3n harbors a burning hatrid of PJ although she has never been able to explain exactly what PJ has allegedly done to her. I suspect br3n has some serious mental health issues judging by the shrill quality of her ongoing hate campaign.
As usual we have personal attacks and a blind refusal to face real issues. There is a hate campaign and you need only refer to a mirror to find one of it's sources.
With or without attribution? What are the articles?
Could I have pointers to at least some of the pages? URLs, unique titles, identifying descriptions, whatever. It's remarkably easy -- you've already done the research. Just navigate to the offending page, copy the URL to your clipboard, and paste it into a reply here.
-Wang-Lo.
Could I have pointers to at least some of the pages? URLs, unique titles, identifying descriptions, whatever. It's remarkably easy -- you've already done the research. Just navigate to the offending page, copy the URL to your clipboard, and paste it into a reply here.
-Wang-Lo.
I'll admit I haven't followed this closely, but found it interesting to peruse the court docs via this article. One thing I did notice while looking at the SCO site, not that the docs were lifted, but some the links didn’t link to a document or were the wrong pdf document. Good job SCO, if this is your typical level of business procedures, then I ‘d give up now. caricature = miki mouse
DC and Autozone - not about Linux as such IIRC
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 28, 2005 08:45 PM
The article says that DC and Autozone were both sued for running Linux which contains SCO's code. Perhaps this is what SCO say, but weren't the original reasons somewhat different?
I thought DC were sued for not replying to an over-broad software audit request in time - nothing to do with whether or not Linux was owned by SCO.
I thought Autozone were sued for running SCO application code and libraries on top of Linux, not for running Linux itself. Even then, the original claim was based on "They ported their systems over too quickly, so we think they must have cheated" rather than hard evidence. It would be like Microsoft suing for running Word on Wine instead of on Windows. Again, nothing to do with whether or not Linux itself is infringing.
I thought DC were sued for not replying to an over-broad software audit request in time - nothing to do with whether or not Linux was owned by SCO.
I thought Autozone were sued for running SCO application code and libraries on top of Linux, not for running Linux itself. Even then, the original claim was based on "They ported their systems over too quickly, so we think they must have cheated" rather than hard evidence. It would be like Microsoft suing for running Word on Wine instead of on Windows. Again, nothing to do with whether or not Linux itself is infringing.
Re:DC and Autozone - not about Linux as such IIRC
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 29, 2005 09:27 AM
You're looking at the actual court filings (i.e facts of the cases), while someone who pays attention to the SCOGE PR and Darl's public utterances of course picks up the erroneous idea that it all has something to do with Linux.
For that matter, looking at the IBM case documents shows that doesn't have much to do with Linux code either. They can't seem to decide, but maybe to has to do with contracts either ATT, or maybe the real SCO, had with IBM. No telling, even with a scorecard.
For that matter, looking at the IBM case documents shows that doesn't have much to do with Linux code either. They can't seem to decide, but maybe to has to do with contracts either ATT, or maybe the real SCO, had with IBM. No telling, even with a scorecard.
SCO uses Groklaw as document source
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 26, 2005 07:50 PM<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050325" title="groklaw.net">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050325</a groklaw.net><nobr>2<wbr></nobr> 10414203
djp
#